On February 25 and 26, 2009, my father and 56 other officers of the Bangladesh Army, who were sent on deputation to command the border guard force of Bangladesh (BGB), then known as the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR), were brutally murdered by the riflemen inside the force’s headquarters in Pilkhana, Dhaka. Additionally, the officers’ houses and vehicles were burned, properties looted, and families confined for 36 hours, inhumanely assaulted, both physically and mentally.
The riflemen broke into the armoury, fired blank rounds in hundreds and thousands in celebration. While the initial public perception was that maybe the riflemen held the officers hostage to ensure that some of their demands be met, the brutal killings most certainly painted a picture of high-level conspiracy -- the Hasina tenure shushed the media, and leaked bits and pieces of the report claim that her government played an active role in burying documentation and other evidence through their men at all levels, including in the army.
Additionally, since the fall of the Hasina regime, an independent investigation commission was established to uncover the mystery behind the incident. The commission handed over the final report to the chief advisor on November 30, although a sudden extension of the commission’s tenure was made till December 7. The commission has only answered questions from journalists since submitting the report, which has provided a fairly clear picture of what to expect. Before that, let us first address what the report does not cover.
Penalty for the first-hand wrongdoers
Most of the accused were tried by BDR’s Service Law at the force's special courts. Mutiny carried a maximum sentence of seven years' imprisonment under the Service Law. Therefore, all those convicted have finished serving their sentences and are no longer in the force in its new iteration, BGB.
Apart from the special courts' penalties, the judiciary presided over two specific offences -- misusing explosives and murder. Those who directly took part in the killings were charged as per the Penal Code in the criminal court. While the murder cases were heard over time and are currently pending at the Supreme Court's Appellate Division, with verdicts of 139 death sentences and 185 lifetime imprisonments passed by the High Court Division, around 800 cases on explosives remain at the trial stage.
Since the Terms of Reference (ToR) state that the commission will not interfere in the ongoing trials, I wish to emphasise on the second layer of offenders whose names are expected to appear in the report -- conspirators who belonged to the ousted Awami League and those from within the army.
Expectations
First, the report must be made available to either the chief government lawyer (Attorney General) or to the chief prosecutor of the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT), to ensure the arrest and prosecution of the conspirators. It is an immediate necessity since otherwise, the alleged perpetrators may flee. It is worth mentioning that, as the victims' families, we had already filed a complaint at the ICT last December; therefore, that forum might be a convenient choice.
Second, immediately after the prosecution takes the necessary actions, the report should be made public. The incident in 2009 had shaken the whole nation. Hence, the general people have the right to be informed about what sort of conspiracy (local and/ or foreign) had actually led to the gruesome slayings of unarmed officers, who were trained and built to become the country’s assets through hard-earned taxpayers' money.
Third, the motive behind the Awami League politicians' involvement in the massacre must be made clear to the nation, especially if orders had come from Delhi. A significant participation of the party high command, if found in the list of offenders, should be sufficient to permanently ban the party (not just its activities as of now), since it would be well proven that an organization which was capable of murdering its own officers and weakening the military in the interest of another country, is not merely a terrorist organisation but a full proven threat to national sovereignty.
Fourth, separately flag the list of the army officers who played a part in intentionally refraining from carrying out their duty, consciously had done the needful so that the army was unable to intervene while the carnage was on-going, provided with flawed intelligence report to rule out the possibility of dangers before the massacre, destroyed proof of their failures and had later carried out illegal orders of authorities that orchestrated the massacre.
This would once again, after the cases of July and enforced disappearance, establish a precedent of accountability and rule of law, over supposed impunity of the uniformed. Both the politicians, who are likely absconding or have already been imprisoned in other cases relating to the July protests and enforced disappearances, and the army officers, should be tried for committing treason, which I hope the commission recommends.
Fifth, it is essential not only to clarify the political or tactical role of Delhi in the conspiracy, but also to mention whether enough proof could be accumulated on the presence of Indian foot soldiers as troops, agents or in disguise, while the massacre was taking place. If discovered, such a revelation would further strain the already tense relationship between the two countries. However, if anyone can, it is a non-political government (such as the current interim) that can actually pressure neighbouring India to bring its individuals to justice, and also demand an apology.
Sixth, the report should recommend acknowledging certain slain civilians during the carnage, as “martyrs,” including any other BDR rank and file (other than the already recognized Subedar Major Nurul Islam), who were killed in the process of trying to stop the mutineers’ chaos. However, such a recommendation would not bear fruit, provided the government does not publish a gazette -- it is noteworthy that a gazette has not been published to date, which recognizes the 57 slain officers as martyrs. Thus, depriving family members of the honours, rights and privileges pertaining thereto.
Seventh, the commission, although it had no scope to interfere in the trials of the BDR riflemen, should make it clear that their ongoing trials are being held reasonably by the judiciary that is now free from Hasina's influence, and that they are deserving of what they have been convicted for.
This clarification is essential, since a narrative, mainly created by the riflemen and their families, has been in the air, that the riflemen have zero liabilities for the offenses that were committed during the carnage (including the assassinations), and that the perpetrators were outsiders (in guise of riflemen) who either belonged to the Awami League, or were Indian nationals. Although survivor officers and family members of the victims testified at various forums, the internet has proven to be a dangerous place to spread absurd theories and flawed narratives.
Last but not least, some of us who have been representing the victims' families as spokespersons in front of the media (to ensure proper justice for the incident) have been receiving constant threats from members and supporters of the Awami League, and also riflemen and their families.
Provided army officers are named (and eventually prosecuted), this is going to be an additional threat to our lives. Hence, it is expected that the commission in the report has recommended that a degree of security be ensured until the trial of all the offenders is concluded.
Saquib Rahman is an advocate and senior lecturer in the department of law at North South University and the editor of Progress Magazine. He is the son of slain Col Quadrat Elahi Rahman Shafique. Views expressed are the writer’s.
