Doubts and dilemma over BDR report The inquiry report regarding the horrific BDR carnage at Pilkhana has generated more confusion than clarity by ANWAR PARVEZ HALIM It has been three months since the despicable and horrific carnage at the BDR headquarters in Pilkahana. This tragedy is not the government's alone, nor just of the Armed Forces. It is a national tragedy which has affected the very psyche of the nation. And that is why every citizen has been waiting with bated breath for the truth behind the incident to be revealed. Two inquiries into the incident have been carried out and both the inquiry reports have been completed. The army inquiry report was completed and handed over to the Army Chief on May 10 by the concerned inquiry committee head Lt. Gen. Jahangir Alam Chowdhury. And on May 21, former civil servant Anisuzzaman handed over the government inquiry report to the Home Minister. CID investigations continue. Meanwhile, the Army Chief has said that their report has been drawn up for the army alone. The public, however, had been looking towards the army inquiry report more than the outcome of the government investingations. They felt that the army report would have the untarnished truth and so their eagerness towards this report was more. But the Army Chief's statement indicates that this report will not be made public. Analysts say that the army report probably differs from the government's report significantly and contains information that could be a major source of embarrassment for the government. That is why, perhaps, the report is being kept under covers. In the meantime, the report of the committee formed by the Home Ministry has also been completed, but this is not likely to see the light of day anytime too soon. Commerce Minister Col. (retd) Faruk Khan has said that "pertinent parts of the report will be raised in parliament." The people are skeptical about this comment. As it is, during investigations this minister had made several comments which created confusion and controversy. He had said that JMB was involved in the BDR killings. Now, however, both the reports rule out JMB involvement. The Commerce Minister, however, hasn't turned a hair and continues spewing out his statements. And he is not the only one. Home Minister Sahara Khatun, Agriculture Minister Matia Chowdhury and Local Government Minister Syed Ashraful Islam have also been making random statements about the inquiry into the Pilkhana incident. This is only serving to confuse the people and inject doubts in their minds. Prof. Abu Sayeed, Awami League central leader and former Minister for Information, tells PROBE, "On May 21 the Home Minister said that she hadn't read the report. She didn't know what was written in the report. Yet on the very same day the Commerce Minister said that the trial in this regard would begin within two and a half months. The report hadn't been published, the guilty persons hadn't been identified and CID investigations hadn't even been completed. How could the Commerce Minister make this comment? Such comments make the people feel that the government had already fixed in advance what was to be written in the report." Prof. Sayeed goes on to say, "Whether intentionally or not, certain persons in the government are making irresponsible statements which are tarnishing the government's image." he says, "In all countries of the world, certain facts contained in such sensitive reports are withheld from the public for the sake of state security and in public interests. This applies to the BDR inquiry report too. So if there is any sensitive information to be kept secret in the interests of state and public security, this should be withheld and the rest of the report published immediately. A lot of time has been wasted. The longer the delay, the more the confusion and doubts." Speculations run wild as to what the government report holds -- who were involved in the BDR incident, who were behind the scenes, who are the beneficiaries and so on. Yet the manner in which the government is handling things, there are doubts as to whether then truth will ever come to light, says Dilara Chowdhury, Professor of Government and Politics at Jahangirnagar University. Mujaheedul Islam Selim, General Secretary of CPB, says, "The ministers should have remained silent when the investigations were on. They said all sorts of confusing things then. Now that the report is final, what does it say? Why should we have to hear from other sources? The report should be published as soon as possible or else the confusion will simply grow. The longer the government delays, the more all sorts of speculative statements will be made." Biplobi Workers Party leader Saiful Huq says, "The government had made a commitment to inform the public about the inquiry. Since the report is in their hands, they should publish it. There is nothing to edit. Doubts have arisen due to certain statements made by the ministers. The people feel that the government is dragging its feet in order to cover up certain facts." Political commentators have also questioned the Commerce Minister's statement that "pertinent parts of the report will be raised in parliament." They ask what he means by "pertinent parts" -- pertinent to the government or to the people? Maj. Gen. (retd) Fazlur Rahman, former DG, BDR, says, "I saw in the newspapers that the names of several civilians appeared in the inquiry report. This has given rise to suspicion in the public mind." He goes on to say, "Since the Commerce Minister is the coordinator of the inquiry committee, the government should make it clear that he is the spokesman. We will then accept his statements as the government's official statements. With so many people saying so many different things, a smokescreen has been raised." Writer Shariar Kabir, one of the main leaders of the Ghatak Dalal Nirmul Committee (the committee against collaborators during the independence war), speaks a little differently. He says, "When the investigations were being carried out, there was a role for the coordinator. Now that the report is complete, the Home Minister will speak. The Home Ministry and the Law Ministry will decide on how the trial will be held. We want the report to be disclosed as soon as possible. Let the people know the truth." Haider Akbar Khan Rono, leader of Workers Party (Restructured), says, "The manner in which the government ministers are making statements in the media about the BDR matter indicates that they have some sort of preconceived idea as to who is involved in the incident and who is not. This is suspicious. The way the government is dealing with the report seems as if they are trying to hide something. At least that is how the people are feeling now." Prof. Ataur Rahman, President of the Political Science Association, says, "Media reports state that the government inquiry reports has been unable to clearly identify who specifically were involved in the BDR incident, who were behind the scenes and who were the beneficiaries of the carnage. That clearly indicates that this report is incomplete. So what did the committee do these three long months? Or were their hands tied? Nothing is clear. There are even doubts as to whether the matter will be tried properly." Prof. Ataur Rahman expresses his apprehensions about the final outcome of the inquiry report: "Like so many inquiries in their past, there are apprehensions over the fate of this one too. Will the truth behind the killings eventually be covered up?" Anti-climatic army report After the BDR mutiny, the army formed a 20-member inquiry committee headed by Lt. Gen. Jahangir Alam Chowdhury. Lt. Gen. Jahangir Alam Chowdhury made a grandiose announcement to the media about the committee and the government too also spoke about the army inquiry committee as one of the three committees being formed to probe the BDR incident. The army at the time did not make any statement that their report was to be specifically for the army alone. The people took it for granted that this would be for public information too. Not only that, as the government ministers had been making all sorts of confusing statements about the matter, the people were banking more on the army report for the facts to be revealed. On May 10 Lt. Gen. Jahangir Alam Chowdhury handed over the army inquiry report to the Army Chief. After that, the media began publishing bits and pieces of the report and the army issued no protest or rejoinder. The people took the media reports to be true. At this juncture, Local Government Minister Syed Ashraful Islam Islam said, "If the media reports concerning the army inquiry report are true, then it may be assumed that there is a conspiracy against the government." Analysts question the responsibility of such a statement. It also incited further curiosity about the contents of the army report. On May 21, at a function of Trust Bank, Army Chief Gen. Moeen U Ahmed said that the army inquiry report on the Pilkhana killings was a matter of the army. ISPR also issued a statement saying, "That the army report has not been given to the media, yet the media continues publishing all sorts of fabricated excerpts from the report. The media is requested to desist from publishing such misleading reports." From the Army Chief's statement and also from the ISPR statement, albeit belated, it is evident that the army report is not for public consumption. The people who were looking to this report with such enthusiasm, feel let down. Observers say that, had the army in the first place made it clear that this report was for them only, then this controversy would not have been created. CPB leader Mujaheedul Islam Selim says, "If the army report was for themselves only, they shouldn't have announced it to the media in the first place with such fanfare. They should have been more controlled. They should have done it more confidentially." Political scientist Professor Dilara Chowdhury says, "This is not a commonplace incident and so all three reports -- the army report, the CID report and the Home Ministry's report -- should be made public. This would clear all confusion." Leftist leader Saiful Huq feels that it was not wise to have two parallel inquiries into the same incident. "However," he adds, "since the inquiries have been carried out, the reports should be made public. The people will otherwise feel that there are such glaring differences between the two reports that they are not being published." Awami League's Prof. Abu Sayeed differs. He tells PROBE, "Which is more important, the state or an organ of the state? The army is an organ of the state. The army's report should be handed over to the government. The government can take it into consideration. If this is done, then the government will be saved from controversy." Former BDR DG Maj. Gen. (retd.) Fazlur Rahman says that in the case of army inquiries, the government provides certain guidelines. The army inquiry cannot go beyond this barrier. The main objective of an army's own inquiry is to fulfill the army's requirements. For example, matters like pension and such is related to whether a soldier dies on duty or off duty, etc. "I think the army's requirements featured prominently in the army report," says Lt. Gen. Fazlur Rahman and that is why, perhaps, the Army Chief said it was for the army only." He went on to add, "Normally an army report is not made public and so the matter should end here." parvez1966@yahoo.com |
__._,_.___
