| News analysis Stop running probe commentary, please Inam Ahmed
An investigation starts and before it reaches halfway to filing of its report, people know from the horse's mouth what it is gunning for. Yes, we are talking about the probe in the recent BDR massacre and what its chief coordinator has been dishing out on a daily basis, almost like a running commentary.
Any probe is supposed to be a discreet affair. It has to be done in a way so that one hand of the investigator does not know what the other hand is groping for. And then all information has to be pieced together--like in a jigsaw puzzle--to find out the broader picture. If everybody knows what strings the investigators are touching on, what new shapes the information are taking, then there is every chance that the probe may be blown off-course.
Sadly though, Commerce Minister Faruk Khan, saddled with the task of coordinating the probe into the February 25-26 BDR carnage, has been doing exactly the same since getting his new status. Everyday he has been talking to reporters at every possible function about what the probe finds are. It is from him that we have come to know that Jama'atul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB) militants are "involved" in the carnage. The next day, the probe even proceeded further to include "others" along with the JMB in the bloodbath.
Put what the CID and Rab investigators are saying, albeit anonymously. And remember when people talk anonymously they tend to get a bit of a free rein, they tend to brag and amplify things. Yet, as far as our correspondents have gathered from them, they said they still could not identify any link to the masterminds or "conspirators". They have been able to identify the killers who were involved in the murders. Cautious and measured information they give out, indeed.
As it looks now, the commerce minister has been trying to play to the gallery, or he has been trying to act foolishly to alert those who were "behind" the carnage, or he has been trying to etch out political mileage out of the probe.
His comments may influence the probe and investigators may feel constrained to toe his line. His comments can be premature as what seems like evident now may take for a different turn a little up the line. His statements may give the perpetrators time to hide.
For example, look at this comment he made in parliament on March 2: "We know who sent SMS [text message] to BDR members asking them not to surrender arms. We know who brought out procession encouraging the BDR butchers."
On March 13, he said: "We have gathered that a number of BDR jawans arrested in the mutiny case were involved in JMB somehow or other. I will not give more details as that might alert others having links to the mass killings."
On March 17, he observed: "Some people are trying to assist those who were directly involved in the mutiny."
Faruk, and some other ministers, had already come to a conclusion about the motive of the carnage--to destabilise the country and make it a "failed state".
Analysis and guess are one thing and probe outcomes are another. If one sets what to find for the investigators, the outcome becomes dubious. Let the facts talk, let the information reveal what the motive of the massacre was.
Incidentally, saner heads in the government have been holding their tongue. Law Minister Shafique Ahmed has said nobody should be specifically accused of having links with the conspiracy of the Pilkhana carnage before the enquiry reports are published. | |