The incident has been shaped over several days and continues till today. There was a period of confusion followed by a collective scream of horror as the nature of the incident became clear including the death toll and the manner of the death and disposal of the dead. Like it or not, Bangladeshis should not look upon the horrors of 1971 and think that such acts can only be committed by Pakistanis. At least the Pakistanis claimed no ethnic brotherhood and blood ties with Bengalis but Bangladeshis have shown that their capacity for murder, pillage, rape, loot and defiling of dead bodies outdoes everyone. It is a remarkable display of gruesome hatred and should make us humble and reflect on the beast within us, individually and collectively. The myth about Bengalis being soft and gentle hearted should be removed once and for all; they have proved their murderous intent many times before and now.
Mystery and speculation: half-known and half-truths
UNANSWERED questions surround the incident and it has mystified national and international circles equally and fuelled much speculation too. Rumours have been many and many have been accused of crimes but without proof till now. Within Bangladesh, they range from accusations of incompetence on the part of the present government to conspiracies hatched by extremist forces to destroy the army to create bad blood between the civil government and the military forces and so on. However, with every statement, the timbre of the state structure is weakened and it might serve everyone best if rash statements were not made by anyone in the government, opposition or elsewhere, including the media. It is time for a touch of restrained tongues.
It makes little sense to speculate as to what happened or could have happened as the government and the military have both set up investigation committees to find that out. Like others, one hopes that there will be proper coordination between the two committees and full disclosure will follow instead of secret reports. It is not a failure of one institution but a collective one and only by sharing the findings can such incidents be avoided in future. We have far too many secrets and even greater tragedies spawned by such events before and it is time the demand of the people's right to know was seriously respected by all. Half-known truths are as bad as half-truths.
While we wait to hear what happened and how it happened and who was responsible we would like to devote space to what is known and try to understand from them.
The state is more resilient than thought before
PERHAPS the most important fact that has transpired from amongst it all is the resilience of the state and its present shape. Foremost is the fact that despite the extreme crisis and provocation, the army did not take over. This in the context of Bangladesh is an unexpected indication of maturity and deserves to be recognised. Bangladesh does have a history of takeovers and even the present government came to power through an army guaranteed election but the army did not give in to emotions and angry reaction and break the barrier.
In this connection we would like to refer to the clandestine tape recordings of Sheikh Hasina's meeting with the army officers at Senakunja which is making the rounds. Any listening will make it clear that the army officers' principal emotion was that of hurt and primary feeling was that of disappointment that the officers who could be saved weren't.
At the same time, one can also see how misinformation played a part in building up resentment. The prime minister was asked why she didn't attend a BDR dinner and if it was because there was a security issue. The prime minister replied that she had already informed the BDR chief that due to office work pressure she would not go to the dinner and post-dinner celebrations. She was firm and said this sort of rumours would do no one any good. Although voices were still being raised it was clear that the feeling was not dominantly of anger but wounded feelings and a sense of feeling let down.
In this encounter, Sheikh Hasina neither lost her cool nor compromised her position as the prime minister. She also behaved like an 'older sister' and one supposes this approach suited the situation very much and it served both. While facing the unhappy officers, Hasina also defended her own position and that of her government in handling the crisis actively. It sounded like an honest exchange and the airing of grievances which was certainly a positive thing. The fact that no hostility was evident is significant. It was a critical moment in the crisis that in the end cleared much of the cobwebs and the gloom. The next step now is to find out what happened and why.
Scapegoating and demonising won't help the cause
THERE is unfortunately a bit of scapegoat finding that is going on and much of the attention is going towards the home minister Sahara Khatun's way which is unfair. There is no precedent of handling such a situation and all those that happened before were handled no better. The home minister displayed great courage by going in and negotiating. Also, to think that she alone was taking all the decisions is not right. However, there are many forces and institutions who need to explain their conduct and competence and she certainly is not the first on the line.
As has been mentioned several times, there is unease about the failure of intelligence agencies. Of course, given the history of such agencies and their failures everywhere, one should also not be over judgemental but it should be a lesson to them that intimidating civilians is relatively easy compared to taking care of national security and one should prioritise appropriately the tasks one handles.This is the time to be analytical and one hopes that everyone else will do so because it is easy to catch the bus to quick judgement. It applies to all because the crisis is not of a single institution but the state machinery.
The positives of the situation
AMIDST all the anxiety and acrimony there are certain positives that need to be respected. First and foremost, despite all the tension and pressure, the army didn't take over. This is a sign of a maturity that perhaps was missing even a few years back. It means that the civil-military alliance in Bangladesh has firmed up and this is now much more of a fellow travelling. The chief of army obviously played a critical role in this.
The decision not to take the BDR headquarters by force is probably the best decision taken by calm heads because such a decision could have exploded into large-scale violence and that would have been impossible to calm down. Thousands of armed people roaming in a state of conflict may well have been impossible to control and one dreads to think what that would have led to. That it wasn't followed is another positive example.
Several forces from the police to the army to the BDR and Ansars exist without a clear description of who they are. What constitutes the military and the paramilitary and the others must be defined and detailed for what appears to be a case of inadequate management. Such forces exist in India and Pakistan; so, one needs to learn how it needs to be handled.
Two investigation committees are looking into the violent incident but there is a very strong need to look into the structural problems that contributed to this disaster. One has to explore what the real grievances of the mutineers are and what instigations from within or outside were there because a grievance leading to carnage is an extreme disconnect that has to be put in place.
Also, it should certainly not become a military-versus-paramilitary conflict. In the backdrop of the large-scale killing, rage will exist but it is the responsibility of the leaders to ensure that due process is followed and rights of all are respected. There should be a fair trial and everything needs to be done to ensure that such decision are beyond the boundaries of revenge. Victimisation has to be avoided if the gains made now are to be made permanent.
Demonisation of the identified mutineers will be there naturally but the BDR should not be demonised as they are a state force. It belongs to Bangladesh and it is again the duty of the concerned to return it to its original level of competence and integrity. That is why a wide enough enquiry has to be held to find out how many BDR men were involved and why. If a large number were involved, it becomes an institutional issue and must be dealt with decisions beyond trial and punishment. It becomes a matter of reform and restructuring not just trying killers.
The mutiny was meant to foil democracy, people say. For the moment, Bangladesh seems to have survived but one has to make sure that it continues to do so.