Bangladesh:Gunfight at BDR headquarters

[Straight]

I fully agree.....when you have India by your side why look further.

Blame it on RAW.

What can one really do when it is really RAW ?

 

[Jako]

Cool down guys,if you didnt know raw is really regarded as a bullshit by da Indians.........dey(raw) would be quite happy to know you give them so much importance......thnx

 

[TopCat]

Cox's leading right now,i think sundarbans is second or third.....ONCE AGAIN BENGAL LEADING......btw sir hav u noticed ,nobel prize has been brought most time in southasia by bengalis-Rabi thakur,Amaratya sen,and Yunus sir......J.c bose missed for dat thief-marconi.............this is truly an achivement with da presence of so many cultures here in southasia.

You guys also need to push hard for Sundarban as it falls under forest and we have tough competitor Brazil (Amazon). If India gets involved I am pretty sure Sundarban will also come out victorious.
Bangladesh is working hard to get both of them listed in new 7 wonders...

 

[TopCat]

Cool down guys,if you didnt know raw is really regarded as a bullshit by da Indians.........dey(raw) would be quite happy to know you give them so much importance......thnx

They be regarded as a bullshit force for constructive work but not should be regarded as such in destructive activity

 

[Jako]

Its upto you how you see of Raw......but i consider them worthless......they jus couldnt come up with any intellegence report prior to da mumbai attacks,and so many bomb blasts which ripped India last year,....

 

[Straight]

Why disjointed ramblings by PM ?

Few more questions raised by Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury in his article : Blame Game centering BDR Massacre are below for readers’ comments:

1. Two days after the massacre, the Prime Minister told the parliament that she received intelligence report at 8:30 am in the morning of February 25, 2009 about possibilities of problems within the Bangladesh Riffles headquarters. She also confirmed the house that, Major General Shakil Ahmed, director general of BDR phoned her at 9:30 am in the morning, right after the mutiny out broke. At least two army officers, rescued from the BDR headquarters on February 26, told reporters that, they were present at the Darbar Hall during the murder of General Shakil and other officers. They also said, the director general phoned Prime Minister and sought her help.

But during her meeting with the editors, Prime Minister said, the director general of BDR did not call her. Rather she called him and inquired about the situation.

Why is this mis-match in PM’s version ?

2. “DG told me there was a minor problem and it has been resolved”, the PM said the editors in the meeting. On the other hand, rescued army officer Colonel Kamruzzaman told reporters repeatedly that, the director general called the PM right after the problem started and sought urgent measures in resolving the crisis and saving lives of the army officers.

Whether General Shakil, who was in front of guns of the mutineers, would have given wrong information to the Prime Minister saying the problem was resolved ?

3. Why the Prime Minister cancelled her attendance at the dinner on February 26 at the BDR headquarters, two days before the schedule ? She normally is quite fond of such occasions where she can use media coverage.

4. While Prime Minister told the editors that she instructed the army chief for military operation for tackling the mutiny [and rescuing officers and their families] Army required two hours for such operation. In such case, why suddenly she opted for “political solution” in stead ?

See : http://www.weeklyblitz.net/index.php?id=540

Does not lately PM look lonely ?

Where are Amu, Tofael, Suranjit & Abdur Razzaque these days ? We do not hear anything from them. Why Syed Ashraful also is silent ?

 

[TopCat]

Why disjointed ramblings by PM ?

Few more questions raised by Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury in his article : Blame Game centering BDR Massacre are below for readers’ comments:

1. Two days after the massacre, the Prime Minister told the parliament that she received intelligence report at 8:30 am in the morning of February 25, 2009 about possibilities of problems within the Bangladesh Riffles headquarters. She also confirmed the house that, Major General Shakil Ahmed, director general of BDR phoned her at 9:30 am in the morning, right after the mutiny out broke. At least two army officers, rescued from the BDR headquarters on February 26, told reporters that, they were present at the Darbar Hall during the murder of General Shakil and other officers. They also said, the director general phoned Prime Minister and sought her help.

But during her meeting with the editors, Prime Minister said, the director general of BDR did not call her. Rather she called him and inquired about the situation.

Why is this mis-match in PM’s version ?

2. “DG told me there was a minor problem and it has been resolved”, the PM said the editors in the meeting. On the other hand, rescued army officer Colonel Kamruzzaman told reporters repeatedly that, the director general called the PM right after the problem started and sought urgent measures in resolving the crisis and saving lives of the army officers.

Whether General Shakil, who was in front of guns of the mutineers, would have given wrong information to the Prime Minister saying the problem was resolved ?

3. Why the Prime Minister cancelled her attendance at the dinner on February 26 at the BDR headquarters, two days before the schedule ? She normally is quite fond of such occasions where she can use media coverage.

4. While Prime Minister told the editors that she instructed the army chief for military operation for tackling the mutiny [and rescuing officers and their families] Army required two hours for such operation. In such case, why suddenly she opted for “political solution” in stead ?

See : Weekly Blitz l Most Influential Newspaper in Bangladesh

Does not lately PM look lonely ?

Where are Amu, Tofael, Suranjit & Abdur Razzaque these days ? We do not hear anything from them. Why Syed Ashraful also is silent ?

They are still there but sidelined by hasina herself. They really dont have anything to do. Ask Motia and Sajeda, they are the one running the country now...

 

[BanglaBhoot]

PM urges Khaleda : Surrender Cantt house for families of slain Army officers

UNB, Dhaka

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina yesterday hoped opposition leader Khaleda Zia would surrender her cantonment house on eight-nine bighas of land so apartments could be built over there for families of the army officers killed in the BDR mutiny.

"If she does so, I think, the nation will show her more honour," Hasina said responding to supplementary questions from treasury-bench members during the PM's question time in parliament.

Responding to former Law Minister Abdul Matin Khasru, the Prime Minister said it was not correct that the cabinet meeting held on June 12, 1981 had decided to give the cantonment house to Begum Zia.

Reading out the minutes of the cabinet meeting, she said it was decided that the cantonment house where President Zia used to live would be preserved as a memorial to Zia and Khaleda would be given the house no NE(D) Block-3/B Rd no 196 in Gulshan.

But later, Hasina said, the cantonment authorities, "violating rules", gave the cantonment house to Khaleda.

The Prime Minister said if Begum Zia quit the cantonment house, two apartments would be built for each family of the slain army officers-in one apartment they will live and another will be rented out to support their livelihood.

Asked if the present cabinet will take any decision to cancel the cantonment authority's wrong decision, Hasina said, "Being the opposition leader she should perceive it on her own. Why she should give chance of applying any force?"

The Prime Minister said the cantonment authorities cannot allocate its property under any individual's name. "It is not right for a politician of her stature to own a house illegally in cantonment, pursue her politics from there and her sons setting up business office of Dandy Dying."

Hasina also broke the myth that at the time of assassination Zia did not leave anything other than a broken suitcase and torn vest. She told the lawmakers that Ziaur Rahman had purchased lands at Savar and Uttarkhan in Uttara for Begum Zia.

The Prime Minister posed the question since Begum Zia became owner of "cores of Taka, why she should keep occupied cantonment's property".

She recalled that as opposition leader she was obstructed from entering the cantonment to see Prof Humayun Azad at CMH.

"As an opposition leader, if I was not allowed to enter the cantonment, how she being the opposition leader can live in the same cantonment?" the PM wondered.

"It is not decent for a politician and opposition leader to keep occupied cantonment's property. She can return army property to army," she told the parliament.

In this context, Hasina said she and her sister did not receive any help from the state though her father Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was assassinated while he was President in 1975.

Painting a painful speech picture of the post-independence tragedies, she said families of the four national leaders-Syed Nazrul Islam, Tajuddin Ahmed, Capt Mansur Ali and Qamaruzzaman-killed in Dhaka Central Jail were not given any assistance from the state.

Hasina said despite passing through hard days, family members of Sheikh Fazlul Huq, Serniabat and Sheikh Naser killed in the August 15 coup were not given any help from the state. Rather the surviving members had to suffer repression by the post-75 regimes.

The Prime Minister also recalled the killing of Maj Gen Khaled Mosharraf , Col Huda and others on Nov 7, 1975, saying that their family members did not receive any help from the state.

She claimed during Zia's rule, 565 army officers were hanged and nearly 2,000 soldiers killed, "but the state, again, did not come in aid of their families".

Replying to Nazrul Islam Babu (AL) from Narayanganj, the Prime Minister said while she was in power her cabinet had designated State Guesthouse (Gano Bhaban) for her living and an abandoned house at Dhanmondi for her sister Sheikh Rehana, but the past cabinet of the 4-party alliance cancelled her cabinet's decision.

She deplored that the house allocated for Rehana was turned into Dhanmondi police station and Khaleda Zia as Prime Minister inaugurated it. Questioning what she said the shabby mindset of Begum Zia, Hasina wondered how a Prime Minister could inaugurate a police station-a job which can be done by IGP.

In reply to Hafizuddin (JP) from Thakurgaon, Hasina said she did not

take any facility from the state and would never do that in the future. "I hate it," she said.

However, she told the JP member that if anyone is to blame for giving the cantonment house to Khaleda by violating the rules, it is Gen Ershad who should be blamed. "Ershad gave the House to Khaleda to please his sister-in-law," Hasina said and laughed.

The Prime Minister said since she is in power, she would provide all possible help to the families of the army officers killed in the BDR mutiny.

Asked about Begum Zia's property, Hasina referred to the statement submitted by Begum Zia to the Anti-Corruption Commission and said her property is worth Tk 4,28,8900. "Besides, she whitened one-crore taka by paying Tk 33-34 lakh in tax. Her two sons also amassed black money and property," she said.

The New Nation - Internet Edition

 

[idune]

Hasina and Awami League is desperately looking to create sensation to hide her, her son and her party involvement in Peelkhana massacre.

Different trick, repression and threat are applied against her political opponents. For Barrister Razzaq it was false case and CID harassment. In case of KZ threat of taking away her home.

But Hasina's statement and logic is oxymoronic to say the least. Because she wants take away home from widow of a decorated war hero, Chief of army and ex president who was assassinated and give that to widow of another army officer.

Needless to say this is same Hasina before leaving PM office in 2001 captured Gonobhaban (old PM home) for 1 taka or about 2 cents.

Barbaric fact of her cunning attempt is that Hasina is playing cheap politics with life and death of Bangladesh army officers, their families and their loss.

Only Awami kombol holders are impressed by her desperation to create sensation and show of sheer cruelty.

 

[leonblack08]

Choice of my font size was a directed towards the exuberance shown for daily star daily lie. By the way I usually dont use that bigger font.

If you were real broker of cleanliness one would expect you spoken out earlier when initial lie was posted with size 7 font.

I know that's towards me.

So if you don't recall,I post all the news headline with font 7 and often highlight with font 4,but you being a conspiracy theorist always have to look for something fishy.This time no different.

You are simply pathetic,and I don't feel like commenting to your post but yet you quote my posts to drag me into your level.That is off course filled with mud.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Indians are out to divide the nation and instigate internecine feud:Former Indian Army Chief also joined the Indian media’s propaganda war

Shah Ahmad Reza

The Indians have failed again to prove their sincere friendly attitude towards Bangladesh. After the so-called BDR mutiny and killing of the Army Officers it was expected that the Indians would stand by the people of Bangladesh and help to find out and punish the criminals. As the closest neibour it was India’s responsibility too. On the other hand the Indians’ response has been disappointing and alarming.

In stead of even thinking to cooperate, the Indian media in fact started a propaganda war against Bangladesh. The role of the Indian government has also been dubious. The think tanks of India too joined hands with the country’s media. Among others even a former Army Chief has also come to stand in the anti-Bangladesh long cue. The war was first launched by the Indian media. In the name of disseminating news and information regarding the so-called mutiny the Indian media came up with some peculiar but damaging and politically motivated theories. From the very beginning they started to hint their fingers at the Islamist and nationalist forces of Bangladesh. Not only that they also mentioned the names of the Bangladesh Jamaat-E-Islami and Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP).

The daily Anandabazar of Kolkata (26th February) even `invented’ leaders and workers of BNP and Jamaat in the front line of a procession which was brought out in support of the so-called mutineers! That was the beginning. Subsequently each and every newspaper and TV channel of India tried to establish that no one else but the BNP and Jamaat had brought about the so-called mutiny and killed the Army Officers! According to the Indian media the purpose was to hinder and foil the government’s effort to bring the war criminals of 1971 to justice. The second aim, they said, was to destabilize and `overthrow’ the Awami League government. The Indian media even propagated about a `civil war’ which BNP and Jamaat wanted to instigate and initiate. In their last theory the Indian media talked about a `Great Game’ to destabilize and weaken India.

What the `Great Game’ really was has been explained by a former Army Chief of India, General (Retd.) Shankar Roy Chowdhury. In an interview published in the Indian daily Asian Age on 24th March, the retired General has said, ``… the war in Bangladesh between India and Pakistan never really ended on December 16, 1971, but continued thereafter as a "Great Game" between the protagonists to retain Bangladesh within their respective spheres of influence. Round one went to India with the military victory in East Pakistan in 1971, the creation of Bangladesh and the installation of Sheikh Mujib as its founding Prime Minister. He was accepted as India’s protégé, but his assassination within three years … was viewed in some quarters as a substantial defeat of India’s policies and, by implication, a victory for the "other side". Round two, therefore, went to Pakistan…” After explaining about the `Great Game’ between India and Pakistan, General (Retd.) Roy Chowdhury said, ``Since there is now an Awami League government in office, the sepoy mutiny sounds like the opening bell for the next round of the "Great Game", to destabilize the government and replace the India-friendly government of Ms Hasina and the Awami League with a Pakistan-friendly one of Begum Khaleda Zia and the BNP.” The former Indian Army Chief has also cautioned about the probable role of India and said, ``New Delhi will certainly not want that to happen in a country which previous non-Awami League governments had turned into a sanctuary and base of operations for jihadi terrorists groups like Harkat-ul-Jihad Islami Bangladesh (HuJI-B) and anti-India separatist groups from our Northeast.”

The other two theories of the Indian media should also be mentioned here. In the first one the Indian media tried to establish that in order to `come back’ to power again the BNP and Jamaat wanted to instigate and initiate a `civil war’ through the so-called mutiny. This theory has been supported by the country’s think tanks also. In an article, `The Great Bangla Conspiracy’, published in the South Asian Analysis (13th March) Bhaskar Roy has opined that `had the BDR mutiny been successful it would have brought the BNP rightists and Jamaat-e-Islami Islamists coalition back to power.’ According to Bhaskar Roy the mutiny was a `meticulously planned conspiracy’ and it had a `much larger game plan’.

But although well written the Indian think tank’s theory could not gain any support in Bangladesh and the information Bhaskar Roy mentioned did not strengthen their claims. In stead it appeared that in the course of events the Indian government had to achieve many things. For example, in the wake of the so-called mutiny none else but the Foreign Minister Pronab Mukherjee had received an `explicit request’ from Dhaka and he instantly assured that India was `ready’ to come to the `rescue’ of Sheikh Hasina! India acted also very rapidly- the `Parachute Regiment’ of the Indian Army was brought overnight to West Bengal from Agra and the Air Force was kept on `high alert’ in Kolkata and Guahati of Assam (The Telegraph, Kolkata, 28 February).

These information regarding the Indian government’s activities and preparations to come to `rescue’ Sheikh Hasina have been seen as very significant. And it has been correctly alleged that some particular foreign power wanted to destroy the BDR first to make the border a free zone. In the second phase they wanted to bring the Bangladesh Army in the streets. They thought that after seeing their officers’ killing the Army would surely react and try to topple the government. Had the Army really overthrown the AL government and snatched the power the Indian Army would have come to `rescue’ Sheikh Hasina and a war would have been inevitable. And as the `superior’ power India would have won that war, it was assumed..

Here comes the basic question regarding the so-called involvement of the BNP and Jamaat-E-Islami. Could the patriotic and responsible parties like the BNP and Jamaat depend on any such perilous and precarious events and planning which would have paved the way for Indian intervention? It is obvious that had the Indians really come to `rescue’ Sheikh Hasina and her government the `conspiracy’ to `return to power’ would have surely failed. This would have rather destroyed both BNP and Jamaat. Then why would the parties go for such a dangerous `conspiracy’ to invite the Indian invasion? Secondly, why the parties would encourage the killing of the Army Officers? In fact as they adore the Army as their own children they can not even think to harm the Army in any way. It should be mentioned that it was President Ziaur Rahman who had saved the Army from destruction by the Rakkhi Bahini of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and rejuvenated the Army. The Army was flourished hugely during the four-party alliance government of BNP-Jamaat. So the question of harming the Army by the BNP and Jamaat can not even be imagined.

Here another theory of the Indians should be considered. The question is, are the parties like BNP and Jamaat at all in a position to weaken India in any way? Obviously not, will be the answer. There are other reasons also. At least 270 Maoist, Naxalites and militant organizations have been working and struggling in India with various aims including the independence of the North-Eastern India. So India does not `need’ the BNP and Jamaat to weaken or destabilize the country! But yet the Indian media have been aiming their weapons at the most popular and patriotic parties of the country. They have even `invented’ the `hands’ of the BNP and Jamaat leaders behind the so-called mutiny and the killing of the Army Officers! The Analysts think that the purpose of the propaganda by the Indian media and their supporters like General Shankar Roy Chowdhury is to divide the Bangladeshi nation and encourage internecine feud in Bangladesh. They also want to obstruct the investigation. For, the findings might expose the real roles of India which would not be pleasant for the Indian media.

Weekly Rising Sun, Dhaka (30 March, 2009)

 

[Jako]

Looks,like the rising sun isnt far behind anandabazar in making stories......the article clearly hints the news organization to be bnp funded or supported.......enjoyed reading it though......the plot was grt........btw whoz da scriptwriter..(joking)

 

[Straight]

IS IT THAT DIFFICULT TO BACKFILL THE STEPS OF CRIME ?

X-army officers launch probe into BDR massacre
M. Shahidul Islam in Toronto

After much procrastination, anticipation and waiting in anguish, expatriate retired military officers have begun to play a bold and decisive role in the midst of what a former India army chief and lawmaker, Gen. Shankar Roy Chowdhury, said the 'Great Game' involving Bangladesh and its Armed Forces.

Utterly frustrated by what seems like deliberate delay in probing (and extending time for the fifth time) into the BDR mutiny, a group of those officers has decided to employ the 'long arm doctrine' by launching their own investigation from abroad to dig out the real truth behind the heinous BDR carnage of February 25-26.

One of the senior officers involved in the probing said, "The 30-day extension granted to the Home Ministry-appointed 11-member committee headed by retired bureaucrat Anis-uz-Zaman Khan is a ploy to derail the investigation and to shield the real culprits." He added, "Now, the probing of BDR carnage is destined to be lost in the thick of external peddling and internal politicking."

Conspiracy
Requesting anonymity, the officer said his team has uncovered startling information that reveals the "Phase-1 execution of a serious conspiracy against Bangladesh Armed Forces and the country's sovereignty."

In an exclusive interview with this scribe, the former military officer insisted that more attacks would be conducted inside Bangladesh in order to blame a certain group of people before or after the investigation bodies conclude their findings.

"There is a blueprint to turn the nation into a failed state through such attacks, in order to create pretexts for external military intervention," he cautioned.

Gen. Chowdhury's view
Sporting copy of an article penned by former Indian army chief, Gen. Shankar Roy Chowdhury, in the March 24 issue of the Asian Age newspaper, the officer tried to summarise the Indian perception regarding the BDR carnage to prove his assertions. Titled "Delhi can't afford to let Dhaka slip off its radar," the article contended, "The war in Bangladesh between India and Pakistan never really ended on December 16, 1971, but continued thereafter as a "Great Game" between the protagonists to retain Bangladesh within their respective spheres of influence."

Gen. Chowdhury said, "Round one went to India with the military victory in East Pakistan in 1971, the creation of Bangladesh and the installation of Sheikh Mujib as its founding Prime Minister. He has accepted as India's prot駩, but his assassination within three years and the signal failure of India's external intelligence services to detect, warn and protect Bangabandhu was viewed in some quarters as a substantial defeat of India's policies and, by implication, a victory for the "other side". Round two, therefore, went to Pakistan, but the violent, tortuous course of politics in Bangladesh thereafter does not lend itself to easy or coherent encapsulation."

Alarmed by such external perceptions about the nation's fate, these retired officers have undertaken a mammoth mission to unearth the real reason of the BDR mutiny. They claim to have specific clues to proceed towards a direction that will eventually find the foreign culprits involved in this dastardly act against the sovereignty of Bangladesh.

External linkage
"We are lucky to be abroad and our main concern is to uncover the political connection of the carnage and the international inspiration and patronage that had made such a horrendous mutiny possible," said the officer. "We are least interested in the hanging of a few dozens of soldiers in the name of justice. This conspiracy is much deeper than the unruly outburst of a few Jawans we've seen on the TV."

Exuding confidence, the officer said his team is composed of four former military officers who now reside abroad, and, many other experienced officers at home and abroad have agreed to cooperate in the mission. Once completed, "We will submit a copy of our findings to the Government and the country's media along with all available evidence and our identity," the officer said.

When asked what proof they have to back the claim of impending terrorist attacks, the officer replied. "Our police and other security agencies have proof of such impending threats, but they remain silent for obscure reasons. Everyone knows the entire investigation efforts are being dovetailed to suit predetermined conclusions. We are very upset and frustrated. The precious blood of martyrs is being betrayed."

5,000 chocolate bombs
In response to another question relating to the authenticity of any clues of impending terrorist attacks inside the country, the officer informed, "The Detective Branch (DB) has already recovered in the early hours of 29 March about 5,000 Indian made chocolate bombs from the house of a businessman residing at B-Zaman lane, Nilfamari, Syedpur, near the Indian border."

"The bombs were smuggled inside the country to conduct terrorist attacks and to blame a certain group that the government and its foreign mentors want to blame," the officer said.

He also seemed to have extensive knowledge on intelligence matters owing to his previous assignments in the intelligence service of the Bangladesh Armed Forces.

Meanwhile, serious apprehensions relating to investigations' outcome were voiced on March 28 in a Toronto congregation of over 30 retired armed forces officers and their families in remembrance of the butchered military officers in BDR headquarters.

Interestingly, many other convincing ancedotes pointing to similar cover-ups were disclosed to this scribe by the concerned officer.

http://www.weeklyholiday.net/front.html#03

 

[Straight]

[BAL] Govt. accused of obfuscation
Mumtaz Iqbal : The weekly Holiday : 2 April 2009

Make noise in the East. Strike in the West. Mao Dze Dong

The authorities consciously are turning Mao's classic maxim of guerrilla warfare on its head by making noises along all points of the compass not in order to mount a strike somewhere but to sow confusion and buy time to deflect the likely bitter after-effects of the Peelkhana massacre.

The noise generated spans a wide decibel range, from the familiar to the provocative to the seemingly rational mixed with acts of compassion and political artifice.

The familiar noise is trotting out the charge that the religious fundamentalists particularly the JMB had a hand in the massacre. This is a very handy weapon to use, giving the JMB's record of violence and insurrectionary action.

As part of this diversionary measure, Jamaat Assistant Secretary General Barrister Abdur Razzaque had to present himself at the CID office on 30 March where he was questioned for three hours about his activities and whereabouts on 25 February.

Pertinent questions no doubt, but these could also be asked of any number of other people. For example, some Awami Leaguers posed this question about Khaleda Zia. But they quickly shut up when she tartly replied that she was in the BNP office.

We know where some of the AL stalwarts including the PM were on that day. We also know about some of the things they did. For example, some AL MPs, a state minister and the home minister parlayed with the mutineers; that the mutineers were fortunate enough to be given an audience by the PM and so forth.

But there is complete lack of information on what was discussed at these parleys and at the meeting with the PM.

Were the mutineers given an assurance that they would not be attacked by the security forces, which is the normal and expected response to a mutiny? At what point in time did the authorities become aware of the massacre? Was it before or after the so-called amnesty was announced in the evening of 25 February? Will the CID also talk to these AL luminaries?

The nation has a right to know the answer to these and other relevant questions. But there is only stony silence from the government as well as some subterfuge. Thus, the Anisuzzaman Committee is not authorized to examine the process of decision making and the validity of decisions taken by the authorities. Will its report then be a whitewash?

The JMB hobby horse was ridden hard by Commerce Minister Lt. Col (retd) Faruq Khan for about a week in mid-March. But this backfired when FBCCI executives complained that seeing a JMB operative behind every bush was harming business.

The well-meaning Minister hastily backtracked, though like a good soldier he was only following orders in fingering the JMB. But sometimes following orders can land a soldier in trouble. Just look at the proceedings of the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Trials.

The next tack pursued was under what law to try the mutineers. Since over 55 army officers were butchered, there was a widespread feeling that the murderers should receive exemplary punishment. But under what statute? The Law Minister flip-flopped on this issue but did hold out the possibility of trial under the Army Act.

But as circumstantial evidence mounted that those involved may extend beyond both the ranks of BDR mutineers and JMB suspects to include ruling party operatives (See Holiday 27 March Twists in politics of Pilkhana investigations), a vociferous media campaign was launched by AL acolytes demanding that the trial be held in civilian courts.

Was this done out of consideration for justice and due process? Or is the intention to drag out the trial as long as possible so that it drops out of the public sight and becomes a backwater issue, thereby saving the authorities considerable embarrassment? No prize for guessing the right answer.

One of the odd justifications put forward by various quarters including the PM for not taking military action was that it might have lead to a "civil war." Since it takes two to tango, what two parties would have fought this "war"?

The answer given is the army and BDR. But this is absolutely bogus. Civil wars are fought between two political groups with clear cut but opposite and ultimately irreconcilable ideologies. But there were no such ideological differences between the army and BDR.

On the contrary, the BDR demands related entirely to their terms of service and contained nothing ideological. So talking about a "civil war" is wishful thinking and amounts to playing the fear card to cover up the government's inept response.

True, BDR mutinied in various places outside Dhaka. But the balance of strength is so much weighted in favour of the army that such outbreaks would have contained easily.

There is no evidence to suggest that the armed forces particularly the army would not have carried out orders to crush the mutineers, especially after the news of the murder of their officers became known. So the talk about a "civil war" is untenable.

The PM quite rightly has expressed compassion to the family of the murdered officers. Not only will the government give each of them Tk.10 lakhs, but a few days ago she handed each family a cheque for Tk40,000.00, raised by the Bangladeshi banks.

But PM Hasina could not refrain from political grandstanding and artifice on 1 April when she requested BNP chairperson Khaleda to surrender her cantonment house where she was residing, saying that this was allocated to her illegally. A good point, for the law must be obeyed.

But the PM let the cat out of the bag by loftily stating that she would have an apartment building constructed on the surrendered house and that two apartments each would be given to the family of the murdered army officers. Is this a cheap shot to curry favour with the army? What about the family of the non-army officers murdered in Peelkhana? Will they get anything?

The authorities are gambling that time is on their side and that other events such as mounting economic crisis will soon grab the headlines. So a policy of cover up, delay and obfuscation is being mounted to achieve this end. It may work in the short run but all bets are off for the long run.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

PEELKHANA MASSACRE: Sideshows fail to mislead investigators

Sadeq Khan


James F. Moriarty, the U.S. Ambassador in Bangladesh sent a letter to Ms. Sahara Khatun, Minister of Home Affairs of the People's Republic of Bangladesh, on March 22, 2009. The letter read as follows: "Honourable Minister, I am writing to register my concerns regarding recent reports of restrictions being placed on the freedom of movement of individuals seeking to travel outside Bangladesh.

Specifically, in recent days I have been informed that Bangladesh Nationalist Party Standing Committee Member and Former Minister Shamsul Islam was prohibited from travelling to Thailand, where he was planning to receive medical treatment. Similarly, Bangladesh Jamaat Isiami Assistant Secretary General Barrister Abdur Razzaque was prohibited from travelling to Malaysia where his wife was planning to receive medical treatment. In both cases, the travellers were prohibited from departing at the airport by immigration officials.

While I respect the prerogative of the Government of Bangladesh to restrict the movement of individuals under certain circumstances, I am concerned about the lack of transparency in these cases. As far as I am aware, in neither case has the Government of Bangladesh provided the individuals in question with details regarding the basis for the denial of their right to travel in one case, the traveller has obtained a High Court order directing the Government to allow him to travel. ..... It would appear that these two cases constitute violations of freedom of movement and as such would be included in our next report on human rights practices in Bangladesh. I would appreciate any additional information which you could provide in these cases."

Copies of the letter were also officially forwarded to the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs.

War Crime Trial

The contents of the letter was made available to the press. The response of the Home Minister is not known, but the Law Minister, Barrister Shafique Ahmed held a press briefing the same day, March 22. He told newsmen: "The trial of the war criminals has not been started, but the preparatory process has begun and that is why the government has barred some persons, suspected of war crimes, from leaving the country."

Asked about the justification of denying the constitutional right of leaving and re-entering Bangladesh (Article 36) to eminent persons like Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojahid, Shamsul Islam and Barrister Abdur Razzaq, the Law Minister explained that under law, the government had the authority to impose reasonable restrictions in public interest, and quipped: "Why should anyone be barred from leaving country if there is no reason?"

Asked about the names of persons, suspected of war crimes, on whom the bar on travel has been imposed, Barrister Shafique said the number of persons and their names could not be made public right now.

Earlier January 30, Home Minister Sahara Khatun told reporters, "All relevant information about the war criminals has already been sent to the relevant places, and the authorities concerned have been ordered to guard all points so that the war criminals cannot flee the country."

Challenge to restriction

Ali Ahsan Mohammad Mojahid (Secretary General of Jamaate Islami Party) and Shamsul Islam (Policy-making leader of Bangladesh Nationalist Party, both former ministers, did not take the trouble of challenging the restriction, the cause of which was not or could not be explained to them by the immigration officials executing the restriction. Barrister Abdur Razzaq (Assistant Secretary General of Jamaate Islami) never held any public office of the state. He decided to challenge the restriction. Demanding to know the cause of refusal by the airport immigration officer to stamp his passport for departure when he held valid ticket and documents, he was told on two occasions (March 1 and March 7) by the officer-in-charge (Immigration), Special Branch at the airport that there were "instructions from the top administration" not to let him leave, although there was "no written order." On March 8, Barrister Razzaq moved the High Court under Article 102 of the Constitution. The High Court issued show cause notices upon the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, the Director General, Immigration and Passports, the Inspector-General of Police, the Officer-in-Charge Zia International Airport, and the Officer-in-Charge (Immigration), Special Branch, Bangladesh Police, and passed an ad interim order dated March 8, the same day directing all of them to allow Barrister Razzaq to leave Bangladesh for Malaysia. By another order dated March 12 the High Court also directed the respondents to allow Mr Razzaq to visit Singapore as well to accompany his wife for medical treatment.

Court order flouted

On March 19, Mr and Mrs Razzaq went to the airport to catch the Malaysian Airlines Flight MH 197 leaving at 0140 hours for Kuala Lampur. They were supposed to fly to Singapore thereafter. In spite of the Court's order, the Immigration Officer, on the instruction of the Officer-in-Charge (Immigration), Special Branch, Bangladesh Police at the Zia International Airport, refused to stamp his passport. Mr Razzaq showed them official copies of the two orders passed by the High Court on March 8 and 12. Ms Eliza Sharmin, the Officer-in-Charge (Immigration) said that she had received the Court's order but was unable to let him go because of an "instruction" from her higher authority. Barrister Razzaq warned that it would be contempt of Court. The Officer-in-Charge said: "I know that. But I have no other alternative." Barrister Razzaq wanted to speak to the Inspector-General of Police but was not allowed to do so. The Officer-in-Charge consistently - but very politely - requested Mr Razzaq to call off his journey although she said Mrs Razzaq (who had an appointment in a Singapore hospital at 2 pm Singapore time on March 19), was free to board the plane. Mr. and Mrs Razzaq proceeded to the Boarding Gate without their passports stamped but with Court order to allow departure. At the Boarding Gate, a Malaysian Airlines staffer was about to let them in when the Officer-in-Charge appeared there and said to the Malaysian Airlines staff "you cannot let a passenger get into the aircraft without completing the necessary immigration formalities. Mr. Razzaq's passport has not been stamped; therefore Malaysian Airlines cannot carry him lawfully." On such physical intervention, Barrister Razzaq called off his journey. Mrs Razzaq also refused to go without her husband.

Contempt notice

The same afternoon, March 19, Barrister Razzaq filed a contempt petition before the High Court against the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, the Inspector-General of Police, and the Officer-in-Charge (Immigration), Special Branch, Bangladesh Police, Zia international Airport. At the Court's request the Attorney General appeared before the Court.

But before the contempt petition came up for hearing on March 23, the Government jumped the queue by another malfeasance. On 21.3.2009, Government filed a criminal case against both Barrister and Mrs. Razzaq by lodging an ante-dated FIR (the FIR was dated 19.3.2009) with the Airport Police Station (Airport PS Case No. 88) implicating them in a case of assault, criminal intimidation and obstructing public servants in the discharge of their duties. It is unbelievable that Barrister Razzaq or his sick wife were guilty of aggressive conduct. Barrister Razzaq, after he was called to the Bar at the Lincoln's Inn in 1980, had obtained assistantship under Sir Michael Hovers Q.C., Attorney General of the British Government, and thereafter under Lord Rawlinson Q.C., Solicitor General of the British Government. Returning to Bangladesh, he was enrolled Advocate of the High Court Division in 1988 and of the Appellate Division in 1993, obtaining the status of Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court in 2002. His carrier record is evidence of his sobriety, cool headedness and mild manners, apart from the professional dignity he carried from his five years of highly valued practice in the U.K.

Trumped-up charge

On 22.3.2009, Mr. and Mrs. Razzaq obtained anticipatory bail in connection with the criminal case filed by the Police. On the same day, Mr. and Mrs. Razzaq filed a Writ Petition (Writ Petition No. 2022 of 2009) challenging the legality of the proceedings arising out of Airport PS Case No. 88 dated 19.3.2009. On 23.3.2009, a Division Bench of the High Court Division was pleased to issue Rule and stay all proceedings arising out of the Airport PS Case dated 19.3.2009.

On 22.3.2009, Mr. Razzaq also filed another Contempt Petition (Contempt Petition No. 59 of 2009) against the person who lodged the FIR alleging that the FIR was lodged only to intimidate him which amounts to obstructing the course of justice. At the same time, he filed an application in Contempt Petition No. 56 of 2009 praying for a direction upon Ms. Eliza Sharmin, the officer-in-charge, Immigration (Special Branch) to disclose, on affidavit, the identity and address of the person(s) who instructed her to prevent Mr. Razzaq from leaving the country in violation of the orders of the High Court Division. On 22.3.2009, Mr. Razzaq also filed an application to restrain the authorities from taking any action and/or issuing instruction/directions to prevent him from leaving Bangladesh.

The application and the Contempt Petition were to come up for hearing before the High Court Division on 5/4/2009. All these matters came out in newspapers.

British Lord's protest

Barrister Razzaq, who had won several public interest litigations against adverse arguments by senior heavyweights (such as ETV irregular licensing case, the injunction on pipeline export of gas and oil, the annulment of Public Safety Act, 2000, etc.) had well-wishers overseas as well. On March 21, Lord Eric Avebury, the Human Rights Champion of the British House of Lords had also written to the Bangladesh High Commissioner in the U.K. as follows: Dear High Commissioner, I attach an article from February 20's Daily Star, about prominent members of the Jmaat-e-Islami being stopped from leaving the country, and a separate note about the case of Mr Abdur Razzaq, who obtained a court order but was still unable to travel abroad.

As you know, the right to leave one's own country is guaranteed by Article 12(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, subject only to restrictions provided by law or are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others. The High Court order shows that there is no law permitting the government to stop people travelling out of the country, though some of the persons mentioned may be subject to bail conditions.

Would you please let me know what are the reasons for stopping each of these persons from travelling, and where it is not a matter of bail conditions, how this action by the government can be reconciled with their obligations under the ICCPR?"

That letter was also on the Foreign Office desk when the F.I.R. was cooked up to be lodged against Mr. & Mrs. Razzaq.

Peelkhana massacre implicated

On March 25, Law Minister Shafique Ahmed back-tracked from any responsibility about acts of prevention of free citizens from leaving the country without any written government order, assigning any reason or without any legal process. He said the matter of departure of any citizen for travel abroad does not fall under the jurisdiction of his ministry; the law ministry does not have any list of persons prevented from travelling abroad. It is for the relevant authority of the government to explain.

The government, however, went on to muddy water on the issue. On March 28, a notice was served on Barrister Razzaq by CID Assistant Police Superintendent Abdul Kahhar Akhand, who is also the Investigating Officer of the Peelkhana massacre case, asking the former to come to the CID headquarters on March 30 to answer some questions to help investigations. Fearing it to be a trap to legalise the illegal bar on his intended travel abroad (out of political vendetta of the ruling party?), Barrister Razzaq filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the CID notice with the vacation bench of the High Court. The Court accepted the writ petition for regular hearing when the High Court opens on April 5. The Court also granted the petitioner anticipatory bail up to that date, and directed the CID not to harass or arrest the petitioner or seize his passport, and to question the petitioner with due care about his dignity on any matter relating to the Peelkhana massacre case.

Questioning by CID

In the event, Barrister Razzaq was questioned at the CID headquarters on March 30 strictly abiding by the Court's directive (there was no further attempt to bypass judicial censure). CID officials told newsmen after three and a half hour-long interrogation of the lawyer-politician: "Many people were interrogated for the sake of investigation. Many others, including politicians, will be questioned, if needed."

After his long questioning by the CID, Barrister Razzaq told newsmen the investigators only asked him about his whereabouts during the February 25-26 mutiny, about his education, family and overseas trips, and examined his passport. The CID officials also took his contact address and telephone numbers.

Barrister Razzaq said he had requested the CID officials not to harass anyone on political ground, and carry out a proper investigation to bring the criminals to justice.

Why and who in the government did (possibly a presumptuous underling indulged by informal delegation of higher authority) commit contempt of court order in the first place and proceed to institute a frivolous case? Some take the patent view that the wheel of executive authority was derailed by the penchant of absolute power falsely deduced from the awareness of overwhelming ruling party majority in parliament. The institution of the criminal case was but a poor damage-control measure in facing the resulting contempt proceedings. This is the thinking of Barrister Ajmahul Hossain QC who is moving the writ petitions for Barrister Razzaq.

Indian media spins

But others take a different, indeed more sinister view, taking into account broad hints being repeatedly dropped by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina that evil forces "wanted to foil the December 29 poll verdict and push the country towards a civil war by creating anarchy," by Peelkhana carnage. When such hints are read in conjunction with persistent propaganda in the Indian media, quoting official sources of Indian Intelligence who claim high perfection in electronic intelligence-gathering, that the mutiny has been funded and instigated by Jamaate Islami and masterminded by the BNP leaders Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury (Indian TV network CNN-IBN, 26 February), the matter assumes sinister proportion indeed in its undisguised attempt to misdirect the course of investigation. The propaganda campaign in Indian media has continued over a month culminating in a weighty newspaper editorial which authoritatively claimed that the 25 February massacre was executed jointly by a small band of mutineers "with direct links with Bangladesh Nationalist Party and the Jamat-e-Islami who had been smuggled into Peelkhana in a grey SUV that morning and a select group of young BDR recruits, inducted during the last years of

Khaleda-Jamat rule. .......

The BNP-Jamat masterminds so successfully camouflaged their political agenda by highlighting the genuine grievances of the jawans against their officers that initially ordinary people and even the media overwhelmingly supported the mutineers' just cause. Processions were even taken out in old Dhaka hailing the mutiny as Sipahi janata bhai bhai to garner popular support." (Manash Ghosh, The Statesman, Calcutta).

Manipulating investigation

The fact remains, the processions were brought out by Torab Ali, the local Awami League leader, who has now been definitely implicated in case no 65 (kha) 09 of Lalbagh thana in connection with the BDR mutiny. The media spins are thus proving counter productive.

Incidentally, the government inexplicably filed an appeal against the High Court order not to harass or arrest Barrister Razzaq or seized his passport until the regular hearing of his writ petition on April 5. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal. All told, the government (or granting it the benefit of doubt, some influential people within the administration) appear desperate to manipulate rather than allow fair investigations.


HOLIDAY > FRONT PAGE