During the liberation war of Bangladesh the then prime minister, Mr. Tajuddin Ahmed, for whom I have always had the highest respect and admiration, once narrated an incident relating to a war in the southern region (Deccan) of India which was ruled by a Muslim lady. When her soldiers and advisers, facing imminent defeat at the hands of an invading army, advised her to negotiate for peace, she had replied: "Better death than infamy!" Mr. Ahmed added that, since then, this has become a quote for those who are honourable people who do not rush for compromises at the first available opportunity.

I was reminded of this recently. A heavyweight political leader, who was the secretary general of his party, minister, MP, etc., reportedly asked for mercy from the state authorities, citing poor health and the alleged misdemeanour of his party boss.

He obviously chose not to follow the course of the dowager queen of Bijapore, Chand Sultana, referred to by Mr. Tajuddin Ahmed. Well, everybody makes his own choice. The person in question, who is now in custody on charges of corruption, misconduct and abuse of power, is no ordinary mortal. He had earlier, before 1/11, thundered that he would topple the elected government within a given timeframe.

Ultimately, that turned out to be empty boasting, but many innocent people lost their lives in the confrontations and violence following this empty threat. Through unethical manipulations and bland sycophancy, he had marginalised the top leadership of his party who were honourable and competent politicians in their own right, among the founding fathers of Bangladesh.

But now he seems like a straw manall dust and begging for mercy/forgiveness from the relevant authority citing his innocence, like a school kid, and blaming his leader. We have to go back to history again.

After the end of the Second World War, at the Nuremberg trials, the Nazi accusedgenerals, their quislings and abettorsall pleaded not guilty, citing the orders of the Fuhrer to justify their heinous and abominable crimes. None was spared by the tribunal which decreed: "Illegal and immoral orders are not to be obeyed. If one disagrees, he meets the same fate as the original criminal."

This milestone verdict has stood the test of time, and is followed in all civilised countries as a basic guidepost in criminal justice. I will get back to our subject presently, but there is something else I want to mention in this connetion.

In 1969, I was a member of a military tribunal set up under Martial Law in the district of Hyderabad in Pakistan. The tribunal was headed by a colonel, and the other member was a major. Having been trained in law under the British and Greco-Roman systems, I always presumed that the accused persons were innocent, and that the prosecution had to prove their guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. But my other two colleagues nearly always found the accused guilty on presumption of guilt, like in the French criminal justice system.

The colonel often displayed displeasure at my notes of dissent.He once told me: "You have a grey pen. Say yes, sometimes, even if for the sake of change." The colonel also explained to me the difference between a court of law and a court of justice.

According to him, the normal courts are courts of law in which the process is more important than the determination of guilt. The witnesses, the evidence, circumstantial evidence, motives, alibi etc. get a lot of weightage in the final determination of guilt/innocence.

In military courts, which he termed courts of justice, the end justifies the means, which are not so important according to the colonel. The guilty must be punishedthat was the only objective for setting up such courts. I have no disagreement with the objectives, but how to make sure that an innocent person is not being framed in a society which is full of imperfections, lies and deceptions? But I respected the colonel.

After a while I decided to quit, and we parted as friends. But I have thought about the episode for many years, and now I believe that the court, whether of law or justice, will find the truth eventually. Hence, there is no need to panic or make pre-emptive moves like the person under discussion here seems to have done. He should also have remembered the Nuremberg trials.

Now to get back to the individual who is seeking mercy, citing the wrong reasons. I would consider him a person of no account, thoroughly immoral, disloyal, opportunistic and self seeking, a man completely lacking in dignity and honour, who had never had any lessons in basic ethics; who does not even understand the real meaning of mercy and forgiveness. Someone like Usman Soomro of Sind, for example. To blame one's leader of failure, inadequacy, impropriety, or corruption is extremely childish and mischievous behaviour, in addition to being totally unethical.

Great individuals like Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Mother Teresa, Rigoberta Menchu Tum et al, would ask for mercy and forgiveness for the fallen ones, for the sick and the maimed. They would never blame another person for their own omissions or commissions. They would take full responsibility for their own actions. Hence, they are such great global role models.

The person I am discussing here would have done well to take a leaf or two from their diaries before bringing himself to such pathetic, abysmal depths of human decadence. It also shows that he has no faith in our justice system (courts of law/justice as the case may be) or in his own innocence. A lot of people have been interned recently. They are important individuals. They were ministers, law makers, business leaders, elite, public officials, municipal officials, ordinary citizens et al.

I never make any comments on matters which are under trial or subjudice. And I will make none here either. But, I must say that the mercy plea of Mr. N (let us call him that for the sake of keeping the discussion objective) is not only bizarre, in bad taste, and poorly drafted, but also self-defeating.

He has lost more friends and gained nothing as a result. He has also failed to truly malign his leaderfor whom respect and sympathy must have gone up across the board.

My teacher, Mr. Ashutosh Mukhapadhaya, of Graduates' High English School in Dhaka, had advised me in 1957 to have mercy and forgiveness for the fallen ones. I do not want to term Mr. N a fallen one yet, but I do have prayers for him. Only, no respect. Heights of greatness are scaled only by the truly great, and not mere pretenders and apologists.

Syed Abdus Samad is a freedom fighter and a peace and human rights activist. The views in this article are personal and not directed toward anyone in particular.