Bangladesh:Gunfight at BDR headquarters

[Al-zakir]

(from a cave) OMG what a relief

I assumed that gunfight was still going on.

What's attract you to posts useless junk in BD section. How about lurking in Indian section for the time that you may last in this forum.

 

[Al-zakir]

Peelkhana carnage

Finger raised at Nanak, Alamgir

Saturday April 11 2009 00:19:37 AM BDT



The investigators tasked with probing the carnage at the Peelkhana BDR headquarters in February are learnt to have pointed their fingers at some rising leaders of Awami League for their possible involvement in the brutal mayhem. Sources said that LGRD state minister Jahangir Kabir Nanak(The New Nation )

Jubo League general secretary Mirza Azam MP and former state minister Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir MP had several rounds of talks with renegade BDR members before and after the mutiny which cost the lives of 54 army officers from general to captain.

These three prominent persons of ruling Awami League played a prominent role during the series of negotiation with the leaders of the BDR mutineers.

Detained BDR deputy assistant director Towhid reportedly told the investigators these three AL MPs had overt and covert contacts with some of the BDR mutineers.

Meanwhile, Nanak was stated to have fallen sick suddenly with severe chest pain. He is now in Bangkok for treatment.

Over one thousand BDR members have so far been arrested for their alleged involvement in the Peelkhana tragedy. Of them, 250 were interrogated several times during the remand.

During the grilling, 40 BDR jawans have reportedly confessed their participation in the killing spree of the army officers

Over 500 personnel of the Criminal Inverstigation Department ( CID) are now engaged in the investigation into the BDR carnage in various capacities .

http://newsfrombangladesh.net/view.php?hidRecord=257400

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Civilian probe falters: Most investigators feel shaky

Syful Islam

The high-powered Home Ministry probe committee is still in the dark over the motive and masterminds of BDR carnage even after one and half months of its formation, informed sources said.

An influential member of the committee acknowledged that they still could not identify the reason and said "actually it is not our job… police, RAB, Army still in the dark… how can we find it out?"

The committee headed by former bureaucrat Anis-uz-Zaman was supposed to submit its report on March 29 but later awarded 30 more days for investigation.

The government on February 26 formed a six member enquiry committee led by Home Minister Sahara Khatun but reconstituted it on March 2 replacing Sahara Khatun with Anis-uz-Zaman as its head and raised the number of members to eleven.

Informed sources said the committee had no evidence in hand after 1.5 months of formation apart from some information it received from the law enforcing agencies involved in the investigation.

The committee now will meet the BDR jawans who are now in Dhaka and Kashimpur jail. On Sunday the 11-member committee will meet jawans in Dhaka central jail while they will meet jawans in Kashimpur jail on Monday to get information over the deadliest carnage in BDR headquarters in Pilkhana.

The committee last week sent a letter to Additional Inspector General of Police (Prison) to arrange the meeting with the BDR jawans in the prisons.

Some of the committee members apprehend that this job is very much risky for their career as they believe they will not be able to submit a report which will be acceptable to the people.

"We are yet to get any clue. How come we can find out the reasons and masterminds behind the mutiny. We are afraid," said a member.

Terming the investigation a big task the influential member said the committee needs at least three months to reach a conclusion. "The law enforcing agencies using batons and keeping the mutineers in remand fail to find out the reason of the carnage and masterminds behind the scene. Why the mutineers will give us any information?" the member questioned.

On involvement of militants with the killing in Peelkhana as said by Commerce Minister Faruk Khan he said, "We have no idea over such detection. He is making a massacre of his enthusiasm. He is not the official spokesman."

The probe committee is comprised of the law secretary, additional secretary of the home ministry, director general of BDR, representatives from the cabinet division, the armed forces, the Prime Minister's Office and the police.

Two more committees--one commissioned by the army and the other by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of police--are still conducting their investigations.

The BDR mutiny left 74 persons, including 57 army officials dead and many injured. A good number of BDR jawans are still at large after the mutiny. The fate of paramilitary force of the country is now uncertain over its existence as the government is mulling to rename and reconstitute it.

The New Nation - Internet Edition

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Peelkhana carnage: CID finds no outside connection

Staff Reporter

Investigation officials are yet to gather any authentic information as to there is any international connection with the February 25-26 BDR mutiny leaving 79, including 54 army officials killed and injured many, according to intelligence sources.

Sources said, half of the investigation work into the BDR massacre has already been completed.

The investigation to find out the killers, whether any outsider was involved with the killers, nature of committed crimes, types of weapons and ammunitions used during the mutiny, is almost over.

A senior CID official said that three teams of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), those have conducted investigation into the BDR massacre at BDR Headquarters, have submitted a report to its Delhi office.

According to him, the FBI teams in their report did not mention as to where there is any international link or connection of Islami militant organisation with the deadly incident.

The FBI investigated and assessed how the incident had taken place, who were involved with it, whether any political party was involved and the kind of destructive activities.

However, another FBI team is expected to visit Dhaka for further investigation into the incident.

Meanwhile, 208 BDR personnel have so far been grilled in the Task Force Intelligence (TFI) cell.

Source said that during the interrogation in the TFI cell different information were gathered from BDR personnel on their connection with some political leaders.

After tracking mobile call lists of some BDR members, intelligence agencies confirmed that some BDR personnel involved in the mutiny communicated with some political leaders before the incident.

The TFI cell has already identified 100 BDR members who were involved in the killing during the two-day mutiny.

A total of 1028 BDR members have so far been arrested, of them 208 were taken in remands. At present 44 accused BDR members are on remands.

The New Nation - Internet Edition

 

[idune]

Phone conversation of one of the main actors sepoy Salim in Peelkhana massacre has been recovered. In the conversation he had told his wife that there are influencial people who can and will free him. He also said if he tells truth 100s will be implicated.

::Welcome to Daily Naya Diganta::

 

[idune]

Meanwhile one more BDR soldier died in custody. From the chronic death and delay of the investigation report its cleared that Awami govt with help of their indo friends killing anyone who knows and perhaps could be witness to implicate Awami leaders role in the massacre.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

1 more BDR soldier dies
Another soldier of the Bangladesh Rifles died of ‘illness’ at the Dhaka Medical College Hospital on early Thursday.

The BDR said that the decedent, Havildar Kazi Saidur Rahman of 13 Rifles Battalion, was admitted to the BDR hospital at about 3:00am after he felt pain in his chest at about 1:00am on Thursday.


http://www.newagebd.com/2009/apr/17/front.html

 

[idune]

Why couldn't Menon wait for next Delhi govt.?

M I Ali

Last week Shiv Shankar Menon, the Indian Foreign Secretary, came on an unannounced and unscheduled visit to Bangladesh. This is the first of its kind and supposed to be indicative of the close relationship that the Awami League government enjoys with its super power wannabe neighbour India.
This relationship is now so close that the Indian Foreign Secretary did not feel the need to go through the formality of making formal announcements. It must be noted here that such unannounced visits to 'friendly' countries is not a new phenomenon; US and NATO officials regularly visit Iraq and Afghanistan unscheduled and unannounced.
It seems that there must have been an urgent need for a high Indian official to visit Bangladesh, a visit that could not have been put off for a later date. The parliamentary elections have just started in India and will go on for over a month ending in mid May. So what could the urgency be? Definitely not to invite a delegation from Bangladesh to inspect the Tepaimukh project in North Eastern India which will deny water to the central and north eastern part of this country, or to exchange pleasantries with political leaders.
The incumbent Indian government is on its way out and a new government will take over in the next couple of months, the Indian Foreign Secretary therefore could not have been on a routine visit during this period of transition in that country.
The Director General of BDR has returned from India after meeting his counterpart in the BSF to discuss cooperation between them. Routine visits would have to wait for the outcome of the Indian parliamentary elections which will install a new government in order to be qualified as routine. Some emergency situation must have presented itself to warrant the urgent unannounced visit of the Foreign Secretary and in the absence of any credible explanations from either India or Bangladesh, one is left to speculate the possible reasons for the visit.

Excusive meeting
First is the nearly one hour exclusive meeting between the Indian Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister of Bangladesh. It is indeed highly unusual for a Foreign Secretary of another country to have an exclusive meeting with our Prime Minister. Such an official's exclusive meeting should have been the preserve of the Foreign Secretary of our country. Even a one-to-one meeting with the Foreign Minister would have raised some eyebrows; but such a meeting with the Prime Minister has definitely caused a stir among the people.
The Indian Foreign Secretary then had a similar meeting with the Chief of Army Staff of Bangladesh Army. This is indeed highly unusual. This leads one to wonder what could not wait until the new Indian government to take office, speculators would point their fingers to one direction only.

The reports of the BDR investigation committees are due to come out before the new Indian government takes office. There are two reports on the BDR that are due to be released. One is the much delayed report of the Committee set up by the government, the submission of whose report has been twice delayed for reasons known only to the Government and the other is the one conducted by the Bangladesh Army. The later report is unlikely to be made public but an official report will be there nonetheless, for the posterity. Was the Indian Foreign Secretary here on a cover-up mission? The nation would definitely want to know the truth.

HOLIDAY > FRONT PAGE

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Credibility of government is at stake

Sadeq Khan

A New Nation report on CID investigation of the Peelkhana massacre by Mamunur Rashid dated March 31, 2009 claimed: "The law enforcement agencies found some ruling party leaders' direct conversations with the BDR mutineers over mobile phone after examining the mobile phone call lists of the detained BDR jawans.

The law enforcement agencies identified the names which are Home Minister Sahara Khatun, State Minister for Local Government and Rural Development (LGRD) and Cooperatives Jahangir Kabir Nanak, Awami League leader Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir, Dhamnondi-Hazaribagh MP Barrister Fazlee Noor Taposh and Mirza Aza.

Law enforcement agencies investigated the mobile numbers of more than 35 BDR personnel. At least 10 BDR personnel had talked to the ruling party leaders over mobile phone. And 5 detained BDR personnel confessed to the law enforcement agencies that they held talks with one MP and another former MP about their demands. BDR Jawan Salim reportedly talked to MP Taposh at about 11: 00 am on the day of occurrence.

Investigation officers of the BDR mutiny preferring anonymity told the New Nation that they found names of the AL leaders and BDR personnel after verification from the mobile phone operators."

Incriminating evidence

A follow-up report in the New Nation dated 10 April 2009 revealed: "The investigators tasked with probing the carnage at the Peelkhana BDR headquarters in February are learnt to have pointed their fingers at some rising leaders of Awami League for their possible involvement in the brutal mayhem. Sources said that LGRD state minister Jahangir Kabir Nanak, Jubo League general secretary Mirza Azam MP and former state minister Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir MP had several rounds of talks with renegade BDR members before and after the mutiny which cost the lives of 54 army officers from general to captain. Detained BDR deputy assistant director Towhid reportedly told the investigators these three AL MPs had overt and covert contacts with some of the BDR mutineers."

A blogger responded to the report next day on

dhakamails@yahoogroups.com with the comment:

"It possibly is the first time in the history of the world that national government is involved in the massacre of its own military officers. The party is a criminal party."

On April 13, a special correspondent of the vernacular daily Amar Desh filed a graphic report as follows: "On 22 February, three days before the mutiny, a delegation of 15 BDR mutineers along with a civilian associate talked to the Home Minister Sahara Khatun on phone and left a memorandum of their demands with her assistant private secretary. This group of BDR personnel visited three times the Bailey Road residence and also the Imperial Hotel at Farm Gate run by her elder brother, from where recently two hotel residents were arrested by RAB with fake currency notes and counterfeiting equipments. The group had earlier on 13 February met the Awami League Presidium Member Sheikh Selim. The group included Sepoy Moin, Sepoy Kajol and Sepoy Selim. All this has been revealed by mutineers questioned by the Task Force Interrogation Cell.

On February 25, Sepoy Moin and Sepoy Kajol went into the Darbar Hall with arms procured from the security guard of DG, BDR. They were entrusted with the task of shooting the Director General and the Deputy Director General of the BDR respectively. But they got unnerved and failed, while the attending BDR personnel ran out of the Hall.

Killings began at 10:45

At around 10.20 a.m. Sepoy Selim took the megaphone and called on the army officers to "come one by one" out of the hall surrounded by trigger-happy mutineers. Some time after, the DG, the DDG, the sector commanders and other army officers in the Darbar Hall came out in single line. At 10.27 a.m. the RAB Intelligence Branch Director Lt. Col. Majid talked on phone with hostage Colonel Inshad. Both the DG and Col. Inshad were alive at that time, the interrogators found. Surviving army officers from the carnage had earlier confirmed that the killing started some time between 10.45 a.m. and 11 a.m. This belies the claim to journalists by the minister-coordinator of investigations Col. Faruk Khan that Peelkhana massacre was executed already by 10 a.m. that day.

On the s.o.s advice of Col. Gulzar, a RAB team of 300 men reached the Peelkhana gate at 10 a.m. fully prepared to storm the Darbar Hall and free the hostages. They were refused permission to act by official orders from the top. This contradicts the Prime Minister's statement in the parliament that RAB team was delayed by traffic jam and the army would have needed two hours to reach the trouble spot. In fact TV channels showed army units present and battle-ready all around Peelkhana between 11 and 11.30 a.m. that day."

Whither Anis Commission?

None of these reports have been contradicted. The progress of investigation also appears to be going on at snails pace. Particularly, the public enquiry led by former bureaucrat Anisuzzaman Khan appears to be defunct, with the minister-coordinator of the investigative bodies beating about the bush with speculative spins fed to the media. Concerns about a proper enquiry are being voiced by sober analysts in the foreign media as well. Somini Sengupta writing in New York Times on 14 March, 2009 observed: "Two separate investigations are under way: one by the army, another by Mrs. Hasina's government. Whether either will yield credible results or whether their findings will be consistent is unknown. Mrs. Hasina's fate and the stability of the country depend on a satisfactory resolution. .....

Her face-off with the army came into sharp focus three days after the mutiny ended when she confronted an unusually rowdy room of army officers. They berated her for not allowing the army to take charge early on. The screaming match was recorded and put up on YouTube."

Former Indian army chief and former Indian parliamentarian General Shankar RoyChowdhury added insult to injury in his comments in Asian Age on 24 March, published simultaneously from Calcutta, Delhi and London. He extricated India from suspicions about "foreign" involvement in the mutiny, but left no consolation for Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in his analysis, if read between the lines. In a nutshell, he opined: "Three parallel inquiries have been instituted into the events of those fateful 33 hours at the BDR's Pilkhana headquarters, to determine the causes, sequence and responsibility for the outbreak. The first is by the Bangladesh government, the second by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) of the Dhaka police and the third by the Army.

"All indications are that the BDR mutiny was a well-organised pre-planned manoeuvre to traumatise and unbalance Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and her fledgling government. Is there a foreign hand? If so, it is highly unlikely to be India.

"Sheikh Hasina is known to be well-disposed towards India, something that would be anathema to many in the political, legislative, administrative and more significantly, the military and intelligence echelons of Bangladesh, where, as in Pakistan, political power frequently flows from the barrel of the gun.

"In one perspective, 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 prot�g�, 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'. The violent, tortuous course of politics in Bangladesh thereafter does not lend itself to easy or coherent encapsulation.

"The sepoy mutiny sounds like the opening bell for the next round of the 'Great Game', to destabilise the government and replace the India-friendly government of Ms Hasina. Meanwhile, even as a concerned Bangladesh awaits the outcome of the three inquiries, the "Great Game" continues. But alas, too easily and all too often Bangladesh keeps slipping off New Delhi's radar screen. This must not be allowed to happen now."

A curt response

A curt response to General Chowdhury's hegemonic assertions came from an expatriate Bangladeshi on dahuk@yahoogroup.com as follows: "Sheikh Hasina should extricate herself from the Great Game by letting the wolves of TFI tear apart all suspects behind the massacre. It should make no difference if they are her own cabinet members or parliamentary office-holders, and it should make no difference whether they took the cue from shadowy controls seeking to pressurise Bangladesh Prime Minister warning her not to slip off Delhi's radar. It should make no difference if they were diabolically manipulated by the other side. May Allah infuse Sheikh Hasina with that sagacity and strength of mind when she performs umrah next week."

Interestingly, an article in the Daily Telegraph of Calcutta quoted a book review in a Bangladeshi newspaper advising Bangladesh's new government to "adopt a more cautious attitude to New Delhi since our own history shows that a two-thirds majority in parliament is no guarantee of longevity or permanence in power especially when deeply held views about our national interest are constantly and arrogantly offended". The article concluded: "Expectations that the new government would move quickly on matters that concern India may be premature."

Wishful or tendentious statements apart, a most poignant and cautionary analysis of Bangladesh situation has come from Freedom House, New York in its dispatch dated 24 March 09.

Freedom House on Peelkhana

Freedom House was founded in 1941 by prominent Americans concerned with the mounting threats to peace and democracy. Eleanor Roosevelt and Wendell Willkie served as Freedom House's first honorary co-chairpersons. Its dispatch observed:

"The Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) mutiny has a myriad of implications for Bangladesh. Not only is it a security threat to the state, but it reflects the troubled civil-military relations that have plagued the nation since its independence.

"The BDR has a rich history and tradition, .... as a professional force dating back to 1795 when the British East India Company formed the Ramgarh Local Battalion, and as the East Pakistan Rifles it fought with great gallantry in 1971 during the war of independence against Pakistan.

"The BDR's continued status as a paramilitary force has two advantages for the state. As it is controlled by the Ministry of Home Affairs it represents a significant military asset not controlled by the army - already rumours are rife that the mutiny was engineered by Sheikh Hasina to rid the BDR of its army officers, and so create a private army for her. As a separate issue, the BDR's role in guarding Bangladesh's border with India is a highly contentious issue as there are frequent skirmishes between the BDR and India's Border Security Force (BSF). Stories of the BSF's incursions into Bangladesh are ubiquitous in the local press. .... These are sources of serious problems between the two nations, but the BDR's and BSF's statuses as a paramilitary forces provide insulation against involving their respective militaries proper - potentially leading to full-scale war.

"The military has a history of taking control when civilian incompetence begins to severely threaten the state, not always with the disapproval of the populace. Indeed, the January 2007 army-backed takeover from the previous civilian government was met with widespread gratitude by citizens tired of feuding politicians. Under the latter's aegis corruption had risen to crippling levels. .... Essentially, a military that sees civilian governments as breeding corruption to such an extent as to endanger the state is a military over which it is difficult to assert civilian control. Sheikh Hasina is certainly an embodiment of this fear.

"The current crisis, coming so soon after the return of a truly independent civilian government will be incredibly frustrating for the military establishment, whose fears have been confirmed once again. Besides the momentary collapse of Bangladesh's borders, allowing free rein for smugglers, many of the BDR fled once the army were deployed against them, removing heaps of weapons and military grade explosives. They were followed by local criminal groups who likewise looted the various BDR compounds, and it is feared that these weapons will be sold on the black market to Bangladesh's Islamist groups.

Sheikh Hasina's government needs to move quickly to fulfil its duties and gain the public's confidence. Given Bangladesh's staggering array of social, economic, and political challenges, this fluidity regarding the most basic facets of governance bodes poorly for policy coherence going forward."

HOLIDAY > FRONT PAGE

 

[BanglaBhoot]

The BDR carnage and intelligence failure

Major General M.A. Halim psc (Retd)

THE tragic incidents that took place in Pilkhana on 25th of Feb 2009, where fifty-eight army officers were brutally killed, was one of the most heinous crimes beyond anybody's comprehension. Such brutal and merciless killings are very seldom.

We know of the carnage of cruel and barbaric rulers and kings in the past, we also know the atrocity of Pakistani soldiers during our Liberation War, but the scale is not even near to what these mutineers have done to our beloved officers who lived through thick and thin with their troops. They not only killed the officers they went further to mutilate the dead bodies and disposed the bodies most unceremoniously in drains and gutters.

The initial media reporting was in support of mutineers. They were telecasting mutineers upholding the genuineness of the mutiny, for they have enormous grievance against Army officers deputed to BDR. Our media failed to give the real situation of Pilkhana whereas people got news of what was actually happening through international media. What were their grievances? Were these grievances genuine? Did they really want to solve the problems? If they really wanted to, they would have kept the officers as hostages and gone for negotiation. But here in this case no officer was held hostage, they killed all available officers in Peelkhana and asked for negotiation. This was a fake negotiation only to avoid punitive action for unpardonable offences they already committed.

The nature and the characteristics of mutiny is that the mutineers always have a genuine and noble cause; they hardly involve in such immoral act of killing and looting. This was a very well coordinated plan with the aims primarily to demolish the force's strength and unity and ultimately hit the very foundation of our national security and sovereignty by weakening the country's defence.

The BDR crisis was not handled very prudently. It is not known if the stock of the situation regarding the safety of the officers and their family were taken before declaration of general amnesty, although by then the international media was telecasting updated BDR incident. Even after the declaration of general amnesty on 25th Feb afternoon, the mutineers did not lay down their arms, nor did they surrender. The public were unaware of any deadline given to the mutineers to surrender. The mutineers kept on carrying out the massacre till the morning of 27th February. They, however, put an additional demand on the evening of 25th February that amnesty to be passed in National Assembly and a gazette to be published to this effect.

In handling such crisis, the handler must be intelligent, knowledgeable and capable of handling such crisis. But here, in case of Pilkhana, an inexperienced person and unfamiliar to such crisis was sent. Questions are being also raised regarding intelligence. It can't be said surely whether it is an intelligence failure or command failure. We have to wait till the investigation is completed. But failure to gather intelligence is not a new phenomenon, especially if it is ill equipped and ill organized. The Twin Tower blast, Mumbai terrorist attack, 17 August grenade attack and bomb blast in sixty-three districts of Bangladesh, all are cases of intelligence failure. However, intelligence organizations will not have any excuse if they fail to find out the cause and the perpetrators after the occurrence of the incident. Immediately after the occurrence, they should take control of the situation and try to identify the cause and who are behind it. They should also carry out thorough study of their failure and identify the weaknesses and take a remedial measure.

Three committees so far have been formed to unearth the fact as to how it happened and who were behind the planning and execution. Foreign intelligence experts are also in the country to lend their expert hand in the investigation process. These experts will not go beyond providing technical assistance for obvious reason. Therefore, we have to rely on our investigating team and keep our fingers crossed. It is very important to find out who are the real perpetrators behind this heinous act. The investigating team should be upright and they should not have any weaknesses or emotions regarding the investigation. The whole nation is eagerly waiting to know the outcome of the investigation.

:The Daily Star: Internet Edition

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Disturbing developments around BDR probe

YET another soldier of the Bangladesh Rifles died on Thursday in questionable circumstances. According to the official statement, Havilder Kazi Saidur Rahman of 13 Rifles Battalion was admitted to the BDR hospital early in the morning when he complained of chest pain but, as his condition deteriorated, he was referred to Dhaka Medical College Hospital where on-duty doctors declared him dead on arrival. The BDR director general was quoted in a leading newspaper as saying Saidur ‘died of heart attack’. However, the relatives of the deceased alleged that he died because of torture and that several injury marks had been found on his legs and knees. It is disquieting that not only have 12 soldiers died since the February 25-26 rebellion at the BDR headquarters but also the authorities have sought to explain away almost all the deaths in a similar fashion.

The deaths of so many BDR soldiers under questionable circumstances may have already started to crystallise the suspicion that, in the name of investigation of the rebellion, a vendetta campaign may be in progress. While there should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that the perpetrators of the BDR carnage, in which so many army officers were killed, should be investigated, prosecuted and punished, it should also be borne in mind that the hunt for the killers must not degenerate into vigilantism.

Disturbingly still, there is also growing concern, especially among army officers and BDR jawans who were not involved with the BDR tragedy, that a plot may be on to derail the investigations and tamper with the findings of the ongoing inquests. Apprehension is also there that the findings of the investigations might not be properly reflected in the reports of the probe committees due in less than a month. Should such apprehension be even perceived to have come true, the consequence could be dangerous for our nation state.

Regrettably, the government has thus far sought to create the impression in the public mind that it has successfully dealt with the BDR crisis. Making the rebellious BDR soldiers put down their arms was only the beginning of the resolution of the crisis. What is equally, if not more, important is to determine the cause and context of the rebellion and the concomitant carnage, identify the perpetrators and the masterminds, and look for any link with external factors, both within and beyond our borders. Importantly still, the government needs to act according to the findings of — and recommendations by — the investigations so as to pre-empt such an incident in the future. Till then, the BDR chapter is anything but closed.

We fear the authorities concerned may have failed to fathom the seriousness of the issue at hand. They need to realise that the February 25-26 rebellion at the BDR headquarters has touched off tension and induced a mutual mistrust between the army, the protectors of our national territory, and the BDR, the sentinels of our national border. Such a strained relationship between the two institutions of the state would require credible investigations of the rebellion and transparent prosecution of the perpetrators, both in reality and in perception, to be mended. Also, the government needs to initiate proactive measures to restore and enhance mutual confidence between these two institutions.

Hence, the government needs to expedite the investigation process and ensure its credible conclusion. It needs also to probe the deaths of so many BDR soldiers under questionable circumstances since the rebellion. At no point should the investigations be even perceived to be biased towards one party over the other. Otherwise, the fallout could prove disastrous for the entire nation.

http://www.newagebd.com/edit.html#1

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Diverting Attention from the BDR Massacre Probe?

Playing the Fear Card

By Dr. K. M. A. Malik, UAE

The recent (April 12-13) visit to Dhaka by India's foreign secretary Mr Shiv Shanker Menon has raised a lot of questions and speculations. He landed in Dhaka without being invited by the foreign office and met with prime minister Sheikh Hasina and army chief Gen. Moeen, few junior ministers and foreign secretary M. Touhid Hossain. Few details of his discussions with the Bangladesh authorities were made public. It was initially suggested in Dhaka media that he had invited some Bangladesh officials to visit the controversial Tipaimukhi Dam project on the Indian side of the Barak river. But nobody believed this **** and bull story.

It was also assumed that the discussions had involved bilateral issues such as cross border terrorism and infiltration, road and river transit facilities, use of the Chittagong port facilities for transporting goods to India's north east regions, opening up Bangladesh market for Indian exports and investments, etc. But these are also long-standing issues and could not possibly prompt the Indian officials surprise visit to Dhaka.

In principle, there is nothing wrong in India's foreign secretary visiting Bangladesh by arrangement with foreign ministry to discuss issues that affect the interests of both countries. But there are questions regarding the abrupt timing and the undiplomatic manner in which the visit was conducted. Under normal protocol, Mr. Menon should have met with his Bangladesh counterpart Mr. Hossain to discuss any relevant issue and then probably could have visited the ministers as a matter of courtesy. Instead, he first met with prime minister Sheikh Hasina, without anybody else being present, and then with army chief, Gen. Moeen, obviously to discuss some secret issues or a hidden agenda. Naturally one may ask the question: Can Bangladesh foreign secretary go to New Delhi and meet with the Indian prime minister and India’s army chief on a very short notice and bypassing the South Block? What message Mr. Menon conveyed to Gen. Moeen that cannot be made public ? And is it within the normal protocol for a foreign civil bureaucrat to call on the army chief of another sovereign country? Has Bangladesh under the new regime already become another Bhutan or a satellite state of India ?

The true purpose of the Indian official's emergency visit to Dhaka is shrouded in mystery. An initial report on April 15 (2009) in The Indian Express [1] revealed that Menon emphasised the need to crack down on elements that aim to destabilise peace and security in the two countries.â Menon was said to be “very satisfied with the discussion in Dhaka.

The nature of the elements to be cracked down was not made explicit, but one can easily understand that he was talking about the ˜Islamic terrorists and ULFA and other insurgents in India's north east. But these issues again are not new; Indian rulers embedded have been raising these issues for more than a decade now, mainly to corner Bangladesh in international arena and to justify their ever-increasing militarism and subversion in Bangladesh and other neighbouring countries.

Another story on the purpose of Mr. Menon's visit, according to a report in The Indian Express on April 18 (2009) [2], was to ˜warn Dhaka of a plot to assassinate Prime Minister Hasina. The report again said that there was a plot by ˜terrorists to target the new Sheikh Hasina Government, which prompted India to go ahead and warn the Bangladesh top brass of the threat. Given the sensitivity of the information, Menon himself went to Dhaka to convey the information.” Menon also “exchanged notes with his counterpart on the activities of the radical groups operating in Bangladesh and are suspected to have played a role in the recent BDR massacre.

The plot to assassinate Sheikh Hasina was given extra coverage in the Ananda Bazar Potrika of Kolkata on the same day (April 18, 2009) [3]. The story, written by Mr. Joyanta Ghosal, dealt with the recent BDR rebellion in Dhaka (February 25-26, 2009) and said that the plot was aimed at killing Sheikh Hasina and destabilising her government by Islamic terrorists. Mr. Ghosal blamed the outlawed Harkat-Ul-Jihad - Bangladesh (HUJI-B) for two earlier attempts to assassinate Sheikh Hasina.

Mr. Ghosal also engaged in shameless fabrication and propaganda against the BDR forces. He alleged that on April 18, 2001, BDR forces under the command of Maj. Gen. Fazlur Rahman abducted and killed a number of BSF forces (Padua–Roumari border area) which waas an act of aggression against India and also had militant (Jongi) links.

This type of propaganda carried by the big brothers in India and supported by some of their ˜little brothers in Bangladesh is clearly motivated. It is clearly directed against the BDR forces by portraying them as aggressors and main barrier for peace along the border. However, for the sake of truth, it should be noted that on April 18, 2001, a contingent of heavily armed BSF forces forcibly entered into Bangladesh territory in Boraibari (Roumari) and faced a fierce resistance by the local BDR soldiers and Bangladesh villagers.

About 18 Indian BSF intruders were killed, all inside Bangladesh territories, which confirmed that it was BSF that was the intruder and aggressor and that BDR only did what was required of them, that is, to defend their country's lands and people from foreign aggression. It is a shame on the part of Bangladesh governments and the self-styled ‘pro-liberation intellectuals that the BDR soldiers and common citizens (some of them gave their lives) who faced the enemy aggression have not been accorded their due honour and recognition. A nation that does not honour its heroes, inevitably end up being ruled by cowards, villains and traitors.

That the Indian official went to Dhaka to have exclusive meetings with the prime minister and the army chief just to warn Dhaka of a possible plot to assassinate Sheikh Hasina does not seem credible either. Even if there were a plot, Indian government could have simply passed on the specific information to Dhaka without the necessity of any controversial visit. In recent years, Bangladesh army together with different security and intelligence agencies have suffered setbacks due to a variety of reasons, but the country is still capable of protecting her prime minister by taking the necessary security measures.

The most likely reason for Mr. Menon's unscheduled visit was probably connected with the investigations of the BDR massacre on February 25-26. By now, Bangladesh army's own probe committee must have some definite idea about the real criminals and traitors within the BDR ranks as well as their external masterminds. Whether they will disclose the details (or will be allowed to do so) is another matter. But we want to know. Our people want to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The nation would not accept any cover up.

The tragic event has shaken in a very significant way the very fabric of Bangladesh state and its defence forces. The ruling government and their Indian ˜friends have been dishing out what seems to be a propaganda ploy by suggesting the involvement of, in their words, ‘anti-liberation forces, HUJI-B/JMB, opposition Jamat or a section of BNP. Hundreds of BDR forces who took part in the conspiracy and/or the actual mayhem have been taken into custody and being interrogated. But nothing concrete has resulted so far. The investigations that should have taken only one week to finish according to the boastful Home Minister's original announcement have now dragged on for nearly two months, without any immediate end in sight. The process is very complicated and may take some time, but there is a growing concern regarding the true intentions of the BAL government, since a national tragedy is being manipulated for political purposes.

It is now known that the trial of the BDR personnel involved in the Peelkhana crime would be held under military rules. It is most likely that all those found guilty in the murderous campaign would be given severe punishment including death sentence. But these are the foot soldiers. Many of them would pay a very high price for being involved (willingly or unwillingly) in somebody else's deadly conspiracy.

But what about those who masterminded the commando-style operation to destroy the country's defence forces? What about those elements belonging to the ruling BAL party who held conspiratorial meetings before the actual event on February 25? What about those ruling party MPs and leaders who were in contact with the BDR rebels? What about the crores of taka that were distributed within Peelkhana as Mr. Nanak said? What about the various killer groups and their leaders hiding in India during the last 5/6 years (to avoid encounters with RAB) but returning home after the present government came to power in January last? Is it not mysterious that Indian Intelligence knows everything that happens or about to happen in Bangladesh while it fails to unearth hundreds of conspiratorial plots within its own boundaries?

What about the possible involvement of foreign commandos capable of planning and executing such a surgical strike against Bangladesh army? Who will gain most if the country and its defence forces collapse? Was the real mastermind ISI, R&AW, MOSSAD, CIA, MI6 or any other foreign agency determined to destroy Bangladesh defence forces? Was it, as alleged by some Indian media outlets, some elements of the Bangladesh Army itself who were supposed to be anti-liberation and ousted by the ˜pro-liberation Gen. Moeen during the last two years?

We have to wait for few more months to see exactly what the government would do to identify the masterminds behind the Peelkhana conspiracy.

The threat to Sheikh Hasina's life is not new; she had been targeted for assassination several times before by some Islamic terrorist groups. But assassination of political leaders in South Asia (and also in other countries) is not something new and all the conspirators are not Muslim fanatics. The murderers of Sheikh Mujib and Ziaur Rahman were not Islamic terrorists but agents of foreign powers. Assassins who took away the lives of M. K. Gandhi, Indira Gandhi and Rajib Gandhi in India were Hindu or Shikh fanatics.

The true identities of the assassins of Liakat Ali Khan and Benazir Bhutto are still shrouded in mystery. So, conspiracy for terrorism and assassination is not an exclusive reserve for some Islamic terrorists alone, as implied by Indian media and their cohorts in Bangladesh. The culture of terrorism was first introduced in Bengal in early 20th century by the ˜nationalist Hindu youths (Anushiloni and similar underground groups). The culture of ˜suicide bombing was first introduced in the South Asian region by the Tamil Tigers (Hindu) in Sri Lanka.

The reports on the threat to Sheikh Hasina life by ˜Islamic terrorists are not ordinary ˜news stories. These are designed to create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty in the minds of Bangladeshi people as a part of information war by India rulers. This game of the ˜fear card is being played by Indian information warriors in collusion with their surrogates and agents in Bangladesh. There are many historic and strategic reasons for this game against Bangladesh but the most important one at the moment is to divert public attention from exposing the real masterminds behind the Peelkhana massacre. The dark hands of R&AW and India's other special forces (trained by MOSSAD) are widely believed to have planned and executed the commando-style operation at Peelkhana, with the use of some misguided BDR soldiers as front covers and cannon fodders. Whether Mr. Menon came to Dhaka to warn Sheikh Hasina and Gen. Moeen of ˜dire consequences in case India's involvement in the conspiracy is made public is not known. But such a possibility cannot be ruled out.

Let me conclude this essay with a quote from columnist M. Sahidul Islam, The broader strategy involving the fate of Bangladesh is being implemented by phases. Now that the spotlight is being carefully shifted from the BDR tragedy to the removal of Khaleda Zia from her legitimately owned house, and to the bogey of Islamic militancy, we once again are scared to the hilt by the ongoing deflections and deceptions. [4]

(Cardiff April 21, 2009)

Notes and references:

[1] India tells Bangla to crack down on elements threatening peace

[2] India tells Bangla to watch out for assassination plot

[3] Anandabazar Patrika - First Page


[4] HOLIDAY > FRONT PAGE


------------------------
[Dr. K. M. A. Malik is a former Professor of Chemistry, Dhaka University , and a Lecturer in Chemistry, Cardiff University (UK). He has published about 370 research papers in chemistry journals. As a freelance columnist, he also writes regularly on contemporary political and social issues. His published books include: Challenges in Bangladesh Politics - a Londoner's view (2005); War on Terror - A pretext for new colonisation (2005), and Bangladesher Rajniti - Mookh O Mookhosh (2003). His e-mail contact: kmamalik@aol.com]

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Anomalies in Dal-Bhat scheme key factor

Kailash Sarkar

The jawans punished for irregularities in the BDR's Operation Dal-Bhat led the vicious killings during the Pilkhana mutiny on February 25-26.

However, the bloody revolt could be traced to the grievances nursed for years over alleged discriminations against the border guards, said sources close to the home ministry's high-powered probe committee and Criminal Investigation Department (CID).

The resentment among the rank and file for not being paid the allowances for duties in the Dal-Bhat programme only made things worse, they added.

"The killings were not part of the mutineers' original plan,” said a member of the home ministry's probe committee, requesting anonymity.

"They were the senseless acts of vengeance by the jawans who had been meted out punishment for stealing rice and wheat meant for the Dal-Bhat programme," he added.

Investigation sources said the February 25-26 carnage that left 75 people including 57 army officers dead was the third of its kind after the mutinies in 1991 and 1973.

Around 160 BDR men were disciplined for various irregularities and corruption including misappropriation of rice during the Dal-Bhat [rice-lentils] programme, which was introduced to rein in the spiralling prices of essentials during the caretaker government rule.

According to sources, a section of border guards misappropriated a huge quantity of rice and wheat on several occasions. They stole the staple goods while carting those to the BDR stores from the Local Supply Depot.

Sources in the CID, which is investigating the mutiny case, said a good number of detained BDR men who were penalised during Operation Dal-Bhat have admitted they were angry with the army officials in charge of the programme.

Asked, Abdul Kahar Akand, senior assistant superintendent of police (CID) and also investigation officer in the mutiny case, told The Daily Star, “Yes, some of the BDR men have admitted this."

Talking to The Daily Star yesterday, Major Gen Md Mainul Islam, director general of BDR, confirmed that the BDR men found to have been involved in corruption in the Dal-Bhat programme were indeed punished.

CID sources close to the cell monitoring the audiotapes and video footage said the BDR jawans flew into a temper as soon as the slain BDR DG Major General Shakil Ahmed began congratulating everyone on the success of Operation Dal-Bhat.

CID has so far arrested over 1,150 BDR men and 21 civilians in the mutiny case. Around 250 people including 15 civilians have been remanded for different periods.

Of the arrestees, 42 have already confessed to being involved in the bloodbath.

Kahar Akand said, "We are trying to complete the probe as soon as possible. However, we'd still need some more time for a better investigation."

Meanwhile, the government's probe committee is scheduled to submit its report on April 27. It has already been granted four extensions since formation.

:The Daily Star: Internet Edition

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Govt needs to reconstitute BDR on its own

http://www.newagebd.com/2009/may/07/edit.html

New Age Editorial – May 7, 2009

IT IS a source of growing alarm that senior members of the ruling Awami League alliance, including some influential ministers, are repeatedly indicating that governments in neighbouring countries will be asked to play a role in the reconstitution of the Bangladesh Rifles, after the decision to disband the border guards in the wake of the Pilkhana Massacre. The latest statement to this effect came from the State Minister for Home Affairs Tanjim Ahmed Sohel Taj on Tuesday after the BDR chief met with home minister Sahara Khatun, as reported in Wednesday’s New Age. According to Tanjim, the government will likely seek help from neighbouring countries for the training and modernisation of the new force.

We are alarmed by these plans for a number of reasons, the principal having to do with the strategic implications of our national borders with both Myanmar and India being guarded by a force that feels even fractionally beholden to these foreign governments for either their equipment or their training. Surely the implications of this move, even in a token form, cannot be lost on the present regime’s senior leaders. Tasked with the immense responsibility of preserving a country’s territorial integrity, border guards play one of the key roles in the functioning of a nation state, though that role is often invisible, in the form of deterrence. If good fences make good neighbours, undermining the standing of the soon-to-be reconstituted border security agency by seeing them trained or outfitted by governments that share geographical borders with the country is not only counter productive in terms of martial strategy but potentially dangerous. While the government has expressed its desire to involve New Delhi and Naypyidaw in the BDR reconstitution, the US has offered to lend a hand in the effort as well. Ironically, these are also the three countries whose geo-strategic interests may potentially require them to violate Bangladesh’s territorial integrity.

It is pertinent to mention here that both Naypyidaw and New Delhi not only authorised oil and gas exploration vessels to violate Bangladesh’s territorial boundaries to conduct surveys, but refused to withdraw from our territorial waters despite repeated protests from Dhaka last year. It does not speak well of neighbourly relations that both these violations took place at a time when Bangladesh was at its weakest political juncture, governed by a military-backed interim government. The present regime cannot ignore the fact that every year, scores of Bangladeshi civilians are shot and killed by the Indian Border Security Forces – a reality that has received repeated focus but has persisted nonetheless. These facts themselves are enough to indicate that border relations between Bangladesh and its two neighbours in question have been troubled at the best of times. The Awami League-led alliance government cannot afford to ignore these stark realities.

Last but not least, we must remind the government that its plan to reconstitute the BDR with the help of neighbouring governments is offensive to the national sentiment of independence and sovereignty. We cannot overstate the importance of constructive neighbourly relations across South Asia for regional progress and security, but the government must ultimately retain full control of some key arms of the state – without exception.

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Army inquiry court finds no militant, political link

Shahiduzzaman

The court of inquiry formed by the army found no link of militancy and politics to the February 25-26 soldiers’ rebellion at the Bangladesh Rifles headquarters.

The court of inquiry in its report submitted to the army chief, General Moeen U Ahmed on May 10, identified a dozen reasons, including soldiers’ grievances and misunderstanding, for the rebellion.

The summary of the report, a copy of which New Age obtained on Thursday, however, said no link of any civilian and political personalities to the rebellion could be found because of limitations in collecting evidence, verifying obtained information and confirming information sources.

The government inquiry committee, formed to investigate the rebellion is, however, yet to submit its report. The report is ready and is likely to be submitted on Sunday, said sources in the home ministry.

A copy of the report of the army’s court of inquiry will also be submitted soon to the prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, who is also the defence minister.

Reasons behind the rebellion as identified in the report includes wrong impression about the facilities of the army, lack of transparency in establishing and running BDR shops, delay in payment of duty allowances for the 2008 national elections, misunderstanding about lease and contracts of different works in the BDR headquarters, admission to schools in the headquarters and wrong impression about the BDR’s director general Shakil Ahmed, his wife Nazneen Shakil and Dhaka sector commander Mujubul Haque’s alleged involvement in the irregularities, and delay made by the home and finance ministries in resolving BDR problems.

The report identified the operation ‘dal bhat’ as a major reason for the rebellion. It said punishment of some BDR soldiers for irregularities in the programme, getting blank or several forms signed by the soldiers for administrative requirement although they were entitled to get allowances for the programme, denial of their leaves and over-work had caused resentment among the soldiers.

Curbing financial irregularities of the BDR soldiers by their officers from the army also instigated their resentment, the report said.

As the army officers deputed to the BDR did not take any initiatives to correct the wrong impressions created among the soldiers about the officers, some of the soldiers could obtain support of others for the rebellion by distributing leaflets on February 21, the report observed.

It also said undue interference in the administration by the families, friends and staff of some officers also caused resentment among the soldiers.

The report said no evidence, information, documentary evidence and forecast of direct or indirect link of any local or external militant organisation to the rebellion could yet be found.

As for any political links to the rebellion, it said some soldiers had contacted some civil personalities and political leaders before the national elections in 2008 to press home their demands violating the rules and regulations.

It is presumable that certain civil and political personalities were naturally aggrieved by the army’s role in aid of the civil administration during the immediate-past government.

As some soldiers contacted civil and political personalities hoping to have their commitment to realising their demands, the civilian and political personalities could have used the soldiers as a weapon to take revenge.

The report said local leader Torab Ali, also a former subehdar, his son Liton and former nayeb subehdar Kanchan’s son Zakir were very much involved with the rebellion. As Liton is an illegal arms dealer, he could have helped the rebels to get arms of the Bangladesh Rifles.

The report recommended a high-level inquiry by the intelligence agencies to look into the link of any other organisations, institutions and personalities to the rebellion.

It observed the intelligence agencies had completely failed to inform the authorities of the meetings of the soldiers with certain civilian and political personalities.

As the members of the BDR intelligence agency, Rifles Security Unit, were directly involved with the rebellion, they did not inform their authorities of the rebellion.

On political negotiations, the report praised the home affairs minister, Sahara Khatun, state minister for LGRD and cooperatives Jahangir Kabir Nanak and other members of the teams for their highly courageous move to quell the rebellion.

It, however, observed they had failed to take any timely measure for lack of their experience in quelling such rebellions and military matters.

The report observed the scope for quelling the rebels before they could get organised could not be used as 350 Rapid Action Battalion members, who reached the three gates of the headquarters by 10:10am on February 25, were not allowed by their headquarters to conduct operations.

Although the rebellion broke out at 9:30am, the rebels were not organised and they did not set up heavy weapons at the gates of the headquarters until 11:00am.

Regarding the activities of the army, the report said the army personnel could not be deployed in time as they could not carry out any reconnaissance because of time constraint and necessary military weapons (armoured personnel carriers and tanks) were not readied in the Dhaka cantonment.

The report, moreover, added the 46 Brigade could not play its role as the political personalities sought time to resolve the matter through negotiations.

Although the army personnel were deployed around the BDR headquarters at 10:50am on February 25, they were ordered to go out of sight from the headquarters and the rebels got time to get organised.

At 12:45pm on February 26, in the presence of army, air force and battalion personnel in the army headquarters, a plan was chalked up for military operation against the rebels. An H-hour, when a military operation begins, was set at 4:00pm in accordance with directives issued by the army chief’s office at 1:30pm.

As the home minister and her team were holding a meeting with the rebels in the BDR headquarters, the H-hour was changed repeatedly and finally the operation was cancelled at 5:50pm.

According to the report, a team of 30 to 35 soldiers, in several groups, killed the officers in the Durbar Hall and the residence of the director general. Killing elsewhere was carried out later. The plan for the killing was initially limited to a few soldiers.

Physical torture on the wives of the officers was planned and the list of the wives to be tortured had also been prepared before the rebellion broke out, the report said.

The report observed immediately after the national elections, politicians, intellectuals and other personalities, in the parliament and television talk-shows, started character assassination of army officers, evaluating their activities of the preceding two years and it instigated the rebellion.

The Inter Service Public Relations, public relations office of the army, failed to play any effective role in projecting correct information vis-à-vis the propaganda made by BDR soldiers who were giving wrong information, the report observed.

It said 74 people — 57 army officers, 9 soldiers and 8 civilians — were killed in the rebellion.

The report recommended exemplary punishment of the perpetrators under the Army Act and expeditious trial of the civilians, who might be found involved with the rebellion.

It also recommended formation of a high-level court of inquiry to investigate the involvement of civilian personalities and institutions with the rebellion observing that the court of inquiry could not obtain information on them because of its limitations.

It recommended that the name of the Bangladesh Rifles should be reorganised, by changing its name, uniform and infrastructure.

Front Page

 

[BanglaBhoot]

Counter-offensive not allowed: Army officers were killed when peace process was on, negotiators lacked professionalism; It may be revenge action by some quarter

Mamunur Rashid



The army led court of enquiry identified several reasons for the carnage at the Peelkhana BDR headquarters on February 25 and 26, the foremost being the deep resentment of BDR jawans against the " Dal Bhat operation" launched during the last caretaker government.

More facilities for the army personnel compared with BDR jawans, non-payment of bills of the BDR jawans for duties in connection with the national elections and stoppage of illegal income of the BDR men have been cited as some of the major factors that incited them to stage the mutiny, according to a report submitted to the chief of army staff General Gen Moeen U Ahmed by the court of enquiry on May 11. The 20-member court of enquiry was headed by Lt.Gen. Md. Jahangir Alam Chowdury.

The report said that the BDR jawans used to work as sellers of fish and grocers in the Operation Dal Bhat and this hurt their dignity. Many of the jawans had to suffer punishment for this operation. Their signature on blank forms for making payment also created doubts in their minds and many harboured the belief that fund for the operation has been misappropriated, the report was stated to have mentioned.

The court of enquiry, however, found no proof of the involvement of militants in the BDR mutiny.

The report also blamed the intelligence agencies for their failure to forestall

the mutiny by taking prompt action in advance. Despite holding meeting with the political leaders on their demands by some BDR men, the intelligence agencies were dark about it, the report added.

Referring to the role played by the Home Minister Sahara Khatun and others, it said they could not take timely and effective measures for their lack of knowledge on military affairs.

It was also critical of the role of Rapid Action Battalion (Rab) for its inaction to put down the mutiny. The report pointed out that though a 350-member of Rab team was stationed at the three gates of Peelkhana after the mutiny, no permission was given to it to launch counter offensive against the mutineers. If the Rab was ordered to carry out offensive at that time the lives of the army officers could have been saved, it noted.

About the role of army to quell the mutiny, the report said the army could not be deployed on time as no rake could be carried out in advance for time constraint and absence of stock of required military equipment. Besides, the 46th brigade could not play its due role because of negotiation with the political leaders, the report mentioned.

The morale of the army broke down following the airing of the news of brutal killing of army officers and repression and insult to their family members.

The report accused the BDR men of breaking law while trying to enlist the support of the political leaders by meeting them.

The report held the view that many political and non-political leaders might have been angry with the army for helping the administration during the tenure of the caretaker government. These people might have used the mutiny as revenge against the army.

The report further said that Awami league leader subedar Torab Ali , his son Leather Liton and jawan Kanchon's son Zakir stoked the mutiny by holding meeting with the BDR men.

Shedding light on killing and pillage at Peelkhana the report said at first 30 to 35 BDR jawans embarked on killing spree of army officers at Darbar Hall, DG building and other buildings. It later spread to other places. The court of equiry could not ascertain who killed the army officers and where. It could neither collect the names of the main planners of the mutiny. Most of the BDR jawans knew in advance about holding the army officers hostage but very few of them knew about killing of them, it said.

The report said 74 people including 57 army officers lost their lives in the mutiny.

During the carnage, the BDR jawans indulged in four types of crimes namely killing, repression on women and children, loot and holding hostage.

Disruption of electricity in the headquarters and removal of law enforcing agencies from the around the headquarters for reaching an understanding with political leadership paved the way for fleeing the BDR warns from the headquarters easily with light weapons, looted money and goods and other materials, it said.

The report further said that all the four battalions stationed at the BDR headquarters took part in the mutiny. Though the 44 rifles battalion saved their officers, the 36 rifles battalion killed their officers. The members of the BDR intelligence wings also took party in the mutiny directly.

The report put forward 27 recommendations. They include trial of the rebels under army rule, provision for capital punishment, reorganization of BDR, coordination of the whole affair and due compensation to those killed and wounded during the BDR carnage.

In all three committees were constituted to hold enquiry into BDR carnage separately.

The army team was headed by Lt.Gen. Janhangir Alam Chowdhury, the CID team by ASP Abdul Kahhar Akand and the government probe committee by former bureaucrat Anisuzzman.

The New Nation - Internet Edition