Untold Facts

Revenge for Padua defeat in 2001

The planned killings at the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) headquarters at Peelkhana were a conspiracy to weaken Bangladesh’s defence capability and the border security. This was carried out as a delayed retaliation against Padua defeat of 2001.

The hostile forces that want to see Bangladesh as a failed state and also want to grab military foothold in Bangladesh in the name of task force or peacekeeping force are behind the conspiracy, says Major General (rtd) Fazlur Rahman, a former chief of the BDR.

Talking to the Holiday, Maj. Gen. (rtd) Fazlur Rahman said in confidence that the nation stood firmly together behind the armed forces to keep them restrained and avoid further bloodshed in spite of the shock and anger widely prevailing among the young officers who have lost a large number of their fellow comrades in arms.

Enemies beyond border

“Maybe it was designed to kill two birds in a single shot”, he said adding that the enemies beyond our border always want Bangladesh to be subservient to them and continue to remain subjugated.

Maj. Gen. (rtd) Fazlur Rahman served as the Director General of BDR during the previous Awami League government of Sheikh Hasina. He was regarded as a national pride after the BDR had successfully defended the Indian attack along Kurigram border in April 2001. But Gen. Fazlur Rahman and two other top officials of the BDR had been transferred ahead of the Indo-Bangla border meeting held in Dhaka in July 2001.

BSF’s attack in 2001

At least 16 BSF personnel were killed after the Indian Border Security Force (BSF) launched a sudden attack in the northern Kurigram district on April 18, 2001. Some 33 BSF men entered Bangladesh territory taking cover of smoke shells at Roumari area in Kurigram district and started indiscriminate mortar shelling on the villagers when the BDR, aided by the villagers, retaliated and defended the attack.

BDR, the paramilitary force in Bangladesh, is mainly responsible for guarding the borders of the country. They are the vigilant sentinels of our national frontier. The British had first raised the Ramgarh Local Battalion in 1795 by recruiting the native population. The battalion was succeeded by the Eastern Frontier Rifles, which guarded the frontier from 1891 to 1920, when it was disbanded.

After the creation of Pakistan, border duties in this part were assumed by the East Pakistan Rifles. After independence of Bangladesh it was named the BDR. Apart from its primary task of protecting the borders, the members of BDR were given the additional task of checking smuggling in 1958.

BDR’s glorious role in Liberation War

The BDR has a glorious history; its valiant members took up arms in an organised manner against the occupation Army of Pakistan during our Liberation War of 1971.

After the war several BDR members earned gallantry awards - for example, Lance Naik Nur Mohammad Sheikh and Lance Naik Munshi Abdur Rouf were awarded the highest gallantry award, the ‘Bir Sreshtha’; 8 others were awarded the ‘Bir Uttam’, 40 others got ‘Bir Bikram’ and 91 the ‘Bir Patik’ for their heroic sacrifice and deeds in the Bangladesh War of Liberation.

137 brilliant officers

Referring to the last week’s mutiny at BDR headquarters, former DG of BDR, Maj. Gen. Fazlur Rahman said the carnage of February 25 and 26 was not an outburst of the dissatisfaction of the ordinary soldiers. The killing of a large number of brilliant officers was something else conspired to weaken our defence forces, he asserted.

On Saturday, as emotions ran high among the ranks after the massacre by the mutineers, the military intelligence chief Brig Gen Mahmud Hossain said 72 were still missing, 63 were dead and 33 officers were found alive.

Getting panicked with the news at his old place of work, Gen. Fazlur Rahman instantly called one of the officers at Peelkhana to know about the actual situation and also called a Minister - a former course-mate of his in the Army - to take immediate action against the rebels.

Gen. Rahman felt that the delay in military operation on the plea of the so-called political negotiations had aggravated the situation resulting in the murder of so many officers and the humiliation of their families.

Command, intelligence failure

He told the media several times that the incident indicated a command and intelligence failure. He also blasted the persons in power for not taking the matter seriously and even not responding quickly when the murdered BDR chief Major General Shakil Ahmed conveyed the SOS to the Army Chief and the Prime Minister.

He demanded military trial of the killers who took up arms against the officers and resorted to criminal actions like looting arson and violation of women and girls by taking the opportunity of general amnesty.

Maj Gen Fazlur Rahman wants that the government must restore command first and rebuild the border guarding force to defend the security of Bangladesh’s frontiers.

Author: Abdur Rahman Khan
Source: Weekly Holiday

Intelligence failure caused BDR disaster

Every crisis must traverse a slotted path to come to its end. The BDR mutiny of February 25 was just the beginning of a major crisis that has long way to cross the finishing line. That is why the carnage and the genocide of February 25 have begun to alter the internal political dynamics of the country while the prospect of foreign military intervention remains as vibrant as it was on February 25.

Threat to sovereignty
The Hindustan Times reported on March 2 that the crisis in Bangladesh had put on alert the armed forces of India who remain stand by for what they said ‘humanitarian intervention’ inside Bangladesh.

The paper claimed, since the day of the BDR mutiny,�Indian Air Force (IAF) transport bases - equipped with IL-76 heavy-lift and AN-32 medium-lift aircrafts- were asked to stay prepared to assist the Bangladesh government, if requested by Dhaka. Quoting an unnamed senior IAF officer, the paper claimed that the largest Indian airbase located in Jorhat, Assam, - which is also the closest one to Bangladesh- stands ready to conduct such a mission.

The Indian readiness to intervene was reinforced further by another statement made on March 4 in Hyderabad by the Director General of the BSF, M L Kumawat. “After this crisis in Bangladesh, we have given direction to all our troops and personnel deployed on Indo-Bangladesh border to remain on high alert,” he said.

Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina also said on March 3 in a local seminar that the “Conspiracies against Bangladesh are not over yet…There is still a plot to foil the country’s democracy, independence and sovereignty,” she said, adding, “My own safety is at risk.”

Yet, the squabbling between the government and the opposition continues in disregard to a host of impending internal and external threats to the country’s stability and the sovereignty. The internal political ambiance has been sharply polarized since the Prime Minister pointed a finger of suspicion toward the opposition leaders for the BDR carnage in the parliament, resulting in the opposition leaders to be more aggressive in blaming the government for the tragedy and its handling.

Meanwhile, the victims - the military officers, their families, colleagues in the service and outside - kept blaming the higher command of the military for its failure to launch a rescue mission soon after the massacre began. The higher command, on the other hand, keeps making excuses that it had no order to intervene militarily to subdue the mutineers despite there being a quickly- organized- preparedness to do so.

Crisis mishandled

The pain is made more unbearable when certain facts are made known. For example, observers were awestruck at the PM’s disclosure that the assassinated Director General (DG) of the BDR, Maj. Gen. Shakil Ahmed, had called her from his cell phone upon being shot at and requested for help. Although the PM had called the army chief instantly who is learnt to have said, “The military needs an hour and a half, or two, to launch an appropriate mission,” no further instruction came from the political leadership to enter the BDR compound during the more than 30 hours long stand off in order to see where thousands of bullets were being fired, and, at who.

The military mission thus aborted, a visibly uncoordinated political mission kept the crisis prolonged for nearly 40 hours. During that time, none had the clue that one of the most heinous carnages of history had occurred within the Pilkhana BDR compound, at a time when the Prime Minister declared a general amnesty to the mutineers and sent her political colleagues to talk to the rebel soldiers inside the BDR head quarters without ensuring first the safety of the entrapped officers and their family members.

Consequently, serious uproars are being raised about the failure of the PM to order the launching of a rescue mission and the absence of pressure for the release of the hostages first, unharmed, as a precondition to the declared amnesty. Besides, the PM, as the country’s defence minister, failed to gather enough intelligence to know the true extent of the killings that were going inside the BDR head quarters.

Also surprising is the fact that the PM allowed an MP of the ruling party to launch a publicity campaign to clear the three miles radius of the BDR headquarters, which has further facilitated the fleeing of the murderers from the spot.

Horrendous discovery
All that being part of history now, one wonders how it all happened, who did it, and why?
While that is precisely the undertaking of the investigators who will unearth the real intent of the carnage and identify the culprits, the incident demonstrates a serious lapse in military intelligence. The following facts, gathered from over a dozen of reliable sources, further corroborate that fact.

One: Investigators have learnt that a team of 25 trained foreign commandos entered Bangladesh illegally from India through various bordering areas on or within January 11, 2009. They were received and sheltered in Dhaka by individuals working under cover as diplomats.

Two: At the same time, a small group of 10-12 BDR members, including two Deputy Assistant Directors (DADs), were recruited as the internal moles and coordinators to provide precise information to the foreign team via three senior political leaders of the country until the hours of the carnage.

Three: The occasion for the operation was chosen carefully to ensure availability of all senior BDR officers who had gathered in Pilkhana for the annual BDR day celebration. Over 3,000 extra troops also came to Pilkhana for various administrative duties as well as to launch a tattoo show for which the BDR has been historically famous.

Four: The mutiny was slated for February 24, while the PM was in Pilkhana to take salute in the BDR day parade. In consideration of likely collateral harm to the political personalities and other dignitaries who accompanied the PM, the date was changed. However, final coordination and reconnaissance were done that day by some guests who attended the parade, masquerading as VIPs.

Five: Upon conclusion of final reconnaissance, at about 10.30 PM, on February 24, a segment of the foreign killing squad and over 25 BDR soldiers - plus three young - leading politicians of the country - met in a briefing in one of suburban Dhaka residences. The precise timing of the operation and the responsibilities of each small group were decided in that meeting.

Six: As per plan, one of the DADs ensured that members of the BDR cell would be posted on duty on gate number 4 that morning when the DG would sit for the slated Darbar in the Darbar hall.

Seven: On February 25, the D-day, the foreign commando team entered the Pilkhana compound through gate number 4, at 8.10 AM, using a BDR vehicle (Bedford) which the designated DAD had arranged to send for them about an hour ago. Dressed in sports gear (long camouflage trouser, vest, and PT shoe) - in order to be able to quickly change into civil clothes while fleeing after the massacre - the killers entered the Pilkhana compound undetected.

Eight: The BDR vehicle that carried the killers was followed by an ash-colour pick up van which carried initially used arms and ammunition from outside. In order to begin the massacre, one of the Bengali speaking commandos, armed, was ordered to enter the Darbar hall without permission to engage the DG into a provoking altercation.

Nine: Once the DG was shot, other officers, all unarmed, tried to obstruct the lone killer. Within seconds, the action group of the killer team entered the Darbar hall and started killing other officers while the cover up group cordoned the area.
Ten: In the following hours, part B of the mission began by inducting other troops into the team under gun point and the armoury - as well as the intelligence equipments - was looted. The foreign killers and their local henchmen used BDR soldiers on gunpoint to show the locations of other officers, their families, and the offices where vital national security documents remained preserved. Highly classified border security maps, troop deployment plan and initial action plan, etc. were taken away by the foreign commandos.

Eleven: Eyewitnesses say, two of the last foreign commandos - one male and one female - left the BDR compound in the afternoon on February 26, following the surrendering of arms by BDR members who knew nothing about the mutiny even a minute before. These two are presumed to be the leaders of the foreign commando team.

None of the above could have been materialized if the two main national intelligence outfits of the country (DGFI and NSI) have had prior clues about what was being conspired to destroy the armed forces of the country. The foreign commandos took control of BDR’s own intelligence outfit, RSU, at the initial stage and used RSU equipments to communicate among themselves during the mutiny. The commanding officer of RSU too was assassinated during the carnage.

That aside, there were other intelligence lapses during the mutiny. In the more than 30 hours while the mutiny prolonged, neither the NSI, nor the DGFI, had any clue about who were being shot at and what exactly went on inside. They also ignored SMS messages from fellow officers, on ground that there was no order from the government to do anything.

In reality, these two agencies were too busy, as they often are, in ensuring security to the VVIPs and VIPs; not the country and its vital institutions that they are oath-bound and mandated to serve and protect.

Failure of security

This horrendous lack of intelligence also led to the absence of any special security being arranged at the venue of the DG’s Darbar from where the carnage began and spread, despite Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dictating military commanders to post armed sentry around any gathering of troops or officers, in peace and in war.

As such, the entire security of the day was as usual; the main gates manned by regimental guards, and, gate number four manned by soldiers from that tiny cell created by the two alleged DADs, indoctrinated to be part of a mutiny that tried to rid the BDR of its military command for ever.

Now that the threats to the nation’s sovereignty has exacerbated following this tragedy, the wishes of the foreign powers and their henchmen must be thwarted at any cost.

In order to do that, the political leadership and the armed forces must ensure that innocent BDR members do not face any persecutions while the force itself may be renamed as Border Guards Regiment (BGR) and its command may be vested to a newly created Para-Military Division (PMD) within the Armed Forces Division (AFD) of the ministry of defence.

That having done, all eligible BGR members must be sent to the country’s borders to uphold the nation’s sovereignty at any cost, with a renewed sense of dedication and determination. It’s time for the nation to prove: greater the challenge, more determined we are.

Author: M. Shahidul Islam
Source: Weekly Holiday

Civil War: Indian Intervention and Sheikh Mujib’s Rise and Fall

Sheikh Mujib’s parley with Kissinger on the 30th October 1974 in Dhaka that remained a declassified document of the government of the USA since then is made public on the 14th February 2009 and is lifted in an English weekly in Dhaka on the 6 March (09). There are many issues mentioned therein, some are quite known and some are not correctly or not with exactness. The 1971 episode of Bangladesh that led to independence of the country in December 1971 has a mention there by Sheikh Mujib in verbatim as a period of ‘civil war’ in the document. The term came to be in line what I had argued for on many occasions but not accepted by some persons and so had their own term instead. The term used by Mujib as in the document provided me an urge from within if I could further make my point into the issue and some relevant ones once again.

It is a matter of history now about 34 years ago, and also that the leader curiously used the term ‘civil war’ after three years of independence of Bangladesh from Pakistan that some of his blind followers would not accept at ease as they have been picking up quarrels on the use of the term at this time. Why could not he coin the term independence war, liberation war, freedom war, etc?
Despite the fact that the Sheikh was well known to be a person guided more by heart and little by head, of average IQ and questionable farsightedness as many would know like Sohrawardy, Bhashani etc. but he was not that fool to be incapable to make difference between ‘civil war’ and ‘independence war’. He knew very well that what happened in Pakistan in 1971 was a fratricidal war between two opposing groups of people of the same country, in the instance, Pakistan, that is what the definition of ‘civil war’ as any English dictionary provides. Not only this. He did not have much ado in the game of 1971 except that as he told the people on the 7th March, ‘EBARER SANGRANM AMADER MUKTIR SANGRAM; EBARER SANGRAM SWADHINATAR SANGRAM’. The speech I had fortune to listen to with my own ears and saw many things around with my own eyes being present there in the then Ramna Race Course quite close to the rostrum, apart from having views of his body language, and ending the 17 minute extempore speech abruptly and then left the stage in an unusual hurry. Neither had he cared to hoist the proposed Bangladesh flag that had been kept ready for hoisting in a bamboo mast. I recall clearly another incident in the matter. A friend of mine Safar Ali (Marhum) and a M.P. of the party from Narayanganj told me with all certainty beforehand that the leader would not declare independence from the meeting that I found to be true not only I heard him ending saying Joy Pakistan (LATER ON ERASED FROM THE TAPE) along with Joy Bangla (Joy Bangla slogan was initially coined by now the late Professor Aftab Ahmad, a brilliant Student League leader in late 1960s).
Coming back to the talk, one would argue that as he was then having conversation with the Foreign Secretary of the USA, Henry Kissinger, a renowned diplomat, he had to use the term ‘civil war’ for the US government’s stance of the 1971 period was more close to and sympathetic with Pakistan and officially little with Bangladesh movement, could be somewhat tenable. There were, however, other points involved. None, he did not make the UDI (Unilateral Declaration of Independence) that possibly he could do for Bangladesh if he would seriously ponder about the matter and would not care to take blame on his own shoulder to dismember Pakistan. On this issue there remained a but, a big BUT. Neither did he make any formal declaration on the 25th March (‘71) night before he was taken on detention by the law enforcing agency (Army) from his residence, very curiously he asked his last of comrades present with him to go on with ANDOLON and in specific HARTAL on the 27th March next!.
On looking into the big BUT, one may sift out many other evidences. The first is his intimate relation ( See, Sarder Muhammad Chowdhury, The Ultimate Crime, 1994/99) with Yahya Khan, the Army President and Martial Law Chief of Pakistan even since before the days of his forcibly taking over State power from the previous Amy president Ayub Khan in March 1969 (Late Mahmud Ali’s personal information passed on to me). Both Ayub Khan ( reference is made in the 30th October 1974 Document referred to ) and Yahya offered Mujib the position of the Prime Minister of Pakistan and that he was eagerly willing to accept ‘even for one hour’ (his verbatim) rather than becoming the Prime Minister/President of seceded and smaller East Pakistan/ Bangladesh.
There is another evidence received from the source of his chief lawyer in the sedition case of 1971, A.K Brohi, who not only confidently certified that Mujib was in no measure a secessionist but a patriotic Pakistani so much so that he offered to speak in the PTV and appeal to the people of East Pakistan to resist Indian aggressive war in middle of the 1971 India Pakistan December war for thirteen days (See, Impact International, London, 28th September 1987).
The war victory for India gave Mujib no choice except to accept the fait accompli or de facto Bangladesh. Even so, he promised to Bhutto, the new President of Pakistan, before leaving Pakistan as a free man from the custody on the 8th January 1972 that he would have confederation with Pakistan (West) of independent Bangladesh (See, Stanley Wolpert, Zulfi Bhutto of Pakistan, 1993 OUP, Delhi). On his way back to Dhaka, Mujib reiterated on the 9th January in London the position of ‘Confederation’ with the British (formerly Pakistani) journalist Anthony Mascarenhas.
If one would care to have some tidbits but significant acts of the leader, one should ponder about Mujib’s continued distancing away and in condemnation of Tajuddin Ahmed, the chief architect of secession of East Pakistan and independence of Bangladesh, who ended up in prison within two years of Mujib’s taking over Bangladesh rule in January 1972. One might further take an insight look as to why Mujib did not care to visit the first capital of Tajuddin’s Government in Exile, euphemistically called Mujibnagar, after his charismatic name.

Mujib had all sympathy not only for Bhutto and Pakistan but also for all war prisoners, even for the alleged ‘war criminals’ that he showed magnanimity for their safe return home with due dignity and ‘forgiven’ their all sins in 1971 war. He had, in addition, sympathy for the non-Bengalis long settled in East Pakistan/ Bangladesh since after the 1947 partition. He offered stay for those 400,000 or so who accepted Bangladesh as fait accompli, and asked Pakistan to accept the other 300,000 who opted for Pakistani citizenship.

That the fait accompli and de facto Bangladesh ditched him and the country into Indian trap of domination and hegemony soon became crystal clear to him. The unpalatable position of subservience was manifested in the conversation between him and Kissinger when he wished in the conversation for the US to treat Bangladesh ‘not with someone else (India)’.

Possibly it took some time, not very long, to discover afresh Indian hegemony and machinations on many issues, like water sharing downstream of the rivers Ganges/Padma, Teesta, etc, subservience treatment of Bangladesh through the 25 years treaty, obstructing Tinbigha corridor for entrance into the enclaves of Angorpota and Dahogram, dispossession of the South Talpatti Island in the Bay of Bengal, etc. Being a leader having grown up as young activist of the Pakistan movement in the bitterest taste in 1940s of the Brahminist evil design of the Congress, he could not have been oblivious of the Indian design in 1971 that Indira Gandhi herself on the 16th December 1971 victory exuberance stated, ‘HAZAR SALO KA BADLA LE LIA’ (We have avenged the defeat of one thousand years), made him seek better friend in a desperate way not only with the US but also with China as he begged with Kissinger in the parley because the veil of real Indian design in the smokescreen of the civil war of 1971 followed by the aggression was being removed. Unfortunately, Indian total domination and hegemony had hardly been loosening despite expanding support for Bangladesh at the international level and instead he had to operate as a show boy and stooge of India that the patriotic army took all on themselves to save the country from the ignominy and then spontaneously supported by the common people to topple Mujib from the State power on the auspicious 15th August 1975 in the heroic army coup d ‘etat in Dhaka. The coup not only freed the people from autocracy of the meanest type but also restored dignity of the country by burying lone party BAKSAL, on the one hand, and pluralism and multi-party democratic polity in the country, on the other.

Author: Dr. M.T. Hussain

The Pilkhana Tragedy and some Personal Reminiscences

The sort of unspeakable inhuman cruelties and killings perpetrated mainly on the deputationist Bangladesh army officers by some BDR Jawans in Dhaka on the 25-26 February is being rightly condemned by all sensible men and women, having had though some misinformation and so misjudgment at the very beginning of orchestration of the vicious mayhem. The only Nobel laureate of Bangladesh and the pride of the country, Dr Yunus has rightly joined the condemnation through his statement made on the 2nd March giving vent of all his deep emotions that took long five days though to make after having had his own assessment against the unbelievable massacre of nearly one hundred of the unfortunate but brilliant victims. In the morning on the 3rd March, an Octogenarian retired educator of high standing phoned me up to give his own honest feeling in the need for humanizing the next progeny a clue for educating and socialization of them to be polished gentlemen and women through right curricula and not like those cruel beasts devoid of minimum conscience, sense of ethics in right and wrong and in morality. That was rightly an appropriate suggestion of the renowned educator having had passed through three generations and flags, The British, Pakistan and now Bangladesh. While responding to his points made in the phone call, I instantly responded by recalling back some similar cruelties perpetrated in the past, particularly of 1971, not only of one side but of both sides of the political divide. I put up one instance to him, as well, on the phone. His phone call reminded me of American Professor Adam Curle, who in his book Education for Liberation (1973) made a similar suggestion.

Cruelties are not unknown in human civilization. It is through civilization process that the beastly wrong has been reduced. Democratization has lately been utilized along with supremacy of rule of law that has been instrumental in reduction of human cruelties. In the West, there are of late movements not only for human rights but also for animal rights. It was not only through legal restrictions that such rights are upheld in human society, but also through appealing to conscience of the people in those societies. Bangladesh like many other developing or backward countries still long way off far behind to be practically democratic for it takes many ages provided further that the society goes on developing democratic culture in the society and adhere strictly to democratic norms, values, usages, conventions and so on improving democratic culture. And for continuing to develop with these norms, all time adherence to ethics and morality are must. Unfortunately, many developing countries are short of norms of ethics and morality embedded in conscience that is something spiritual in essence. The neo-colonial countries in general suffer from this common disease for their dependence and belief in their former colonial masters’ laws, ideologies, education, training and administrative practices. Bangladesh is no exception.

Violence is a part of human instinct and psyche and so of our attitudes and practices. The 1947 partition was marked by violence and innocent human lives lost in thousands, if not millions. The same story was repeated in 1971. In 1947 it was religious divide, in 1971 it was ethnic. To many 1947 was reversed in 1971. This is partly true. But so far as mutual enmity and killings were concerned, it was the same against humanity. The other issue and that is by now forgotten is the fact of getting one ethnic group killed twice, once in 1947 and again in 1971. They were more for political follies of the leaders of the time, the quantum of liabilities were other matters to be judged by history. I knew one cabinet Minister in the post independence Bangladesh Government who boasted for killing many innocent non-Bengali ethnic men in a district town in North Bengal in late March 1971. They were from among those survived in 1947 and 1951 in the notorious Bihar killings, their ‘fault’ being that they were Muslims in religious faith. I had a colleague in my early work place in Dhaka in between 1958 and 1971 who lost all but a few of his extended family members in 1971, particularly those in their work places in Santahar etc., then afterwards settled in Karachi, first being driven out from Bihar in 1947 to East Pakistan and afterwards after 1971 from East Pakistan to Karachi, and most tragically they encountered all forms of annihilations and lost many in slaughtered deaths in vicious cruelties, I could hardly describe here. When I searched him out in Karachi by sifting out his telephone number, Khursheed Hashmi, from the telephone guide and met him at his newly built home in Gulshan E Iqbal in Karachi in November 1995, his only little daughter we knew at our Tejgaon Dhaka official residence had already grown up a young woman of about 26 years then served me refreshment as I had little time to spare at their residence.

I had some scope in late 1980s in London to look into facts about 1971 killings in Bangladesh (East Pakistan) as I found some documents there in British libraries in central London. What I had facts and I believed to be reliable gave me quite a few findings. First, the figure oft quoted in Bangladesh and some documents as ‘3 million’ killed was far from the truth. The other fact and figure that came out was that the killings of non-Bengalis far exceeded than the ethnic Bengalis. Various research documents did not fully agree with the total figures killed as also disagreed with the so called ‘three million’ figure. The figures found by these groups like Singer and Small (1982) of New York, Sisson and Rose (1990) of Harvard, USA, did not exceed 300,000, and varied from 100,000 to 300,000. The figure obtained by the Bangladesh survey that had been done by order of the P.M. Sheikh Mujib in 1972 but was never made public for obvious reason of being about 55,000, and thus for fear of falsification of the 3 million figure well known to be given first by the same leader fed by a dubious source, and more amazing was the fact that no mention was there about the figure of the non-Bengalis killed. Despite the variations the US based two groups stated very clearly that the non-Bengalis killed exceeded much more than the Bengalis killed in 1971 in Bangladesh. Sarmila Bose in 2005 had another independent survey that found and stated also in clear terms and confirmed the other earlier findings that the non-Bengalis killed exceeded much more than the Bengalis. Later on in 1996 myself I had one item in one of my works dealing with the 1971 killings and so also Dr. A.M. Chowdhury (London) with similar conclusion as mentioned above. During 1971, it was not the non-Bengalis alone, but also many Bengalis as well inhumanly tortured with all ferocities and some killed in the aftermath of the 1971 episode for their ‘fault’ in not seeing eye to eye with the opposite camp. The brutal killings of former Governor of East Pakistan Abdul Monaem Khan, famous parliamentarian Farid Ahmad and moral torture of renowned Professor of English and V.C. of Rajshahi and Dhaka Universities in late 1960s, Dr. Syed Sajjad Husain, Professor Dr Hasan Zaman, a great political scientist and fluent orator, etc are some of known examples worth recalling, apart from public execution to death by bayoneting at the Dhaka stadium in late December 1971 of some simple folk labeled as Razakars by some renowned fighters of Bangladesh.

There is a maxim the UNESCO propagates that says ‘War begins in the mind of man’. That is why the organization planned to educate men and women rightly in framing up all human psyche through designing and implementing appropriate education curricula in schools and colleges.

One priority should be in action programs at all social levels for attaining equitable economic social justice integrated with high moral norms reinforced by ethical issues and spiritual basics by the responsible political administrators of the country, if one would be serious about rebuilding human psyche of high standing for the future progeny. That is how one could expect to be free from all nuisance of the kind Bangladesh tragically faced in the 25-26 February Pilkhana tragedy.

Author: Dr.M.T. Hussain

Their Freedom: Bangladesh’s Injury

Their Freedom
It was their freedom but ours injury. Indian media’s freedom continued to inflict injury to Bangladesh. I would not go back to many that we had bitterly tasted earlier but only refer here to some recent ones in the aftermath of the 25-26th February BDR mutiny.

Kolkata Dailies Benevolence
Bengali language Kolkata media’s virulent role against Dhaka centered East Pakistan and now Bangladesh is nothing new except at few occasions depending on specific political party in power. The 25-26 February mayhem orchestrated in the head quarter of the BDR in the metropolitan city of Dhaka provided them yet another opportunity to freely use their own axe to grind the very old tool.

Some Examples of Benevolence
The oldest of the Bengali dailies, the Anada Bazar Patrika on the 28th February first page headline in red stated. ‘MODOD ISLAMI SHAKTIR or Islamic forces provided for the sustenance of the mutiny that was also, in their opinion, ‘Dhaka’s doubt’ (DHAKARO SANDEHO). Dhaka’s doubt they meant, I am certainly sure, of the government and the party in power led by P.M. Sheikh Hasina. The Telegraph (Daily) on the same day while invented Pakistan ISI’s hand in the game suggested that the Bangladesh Government should abandon security guard of the BDR and instead agree to guard Dhaka Kolkata two day weekly train service, MOITRY EXPRESS, with Indian security personnel, they termed ‘SHANTI MISSION’. Dhaka’s Bengali daily, Noya Diganta, as well, lifted the news on the 1st March.

The Times of India’s story
On the 1st March, another widely circulated English daily, The Times of India, published from Delhi had a lead news item in the internet edition making the point that one ‘Shipping Magnet’ of Bangladesh, as some BDR Jawans told them, provided huge money support for the BDR mutiny. It was not only that the tycoon’s name for funding of one Crore Taka was printed there but as well linked him with Pakistan. The daily told the readers that as he came of a noted family of Muslim League of former East Pakistan and now a BNP law maker and advisor to Begum Khaleda Zia, the BNP Chairperson, could have rightly do the funding and gave incitement for the mayhem. These are few examples, not all, of their vicious propaganda and also tying them with the ISI of Pakistan. They, however, curiously did not give exact identity of the Jawans giving them the information, possibly they had none specific but something made up.

Their Offer for Benign Guardianship
These are undoubtedly their imagination hardly based on concrete facts and in exercise of their own right of freedom of expression. Their imagination in providing sustenance by the Islamic forces for the BDR mutineers could have been substantiated by specific authentic facts that they did not care to give. So far as the guarding of the Moitry Express by Indian security men are concerned, the proposal is not only utterly disrespectful to the BDR but also to Bangladesh’s government and administration they possibly wish give all time benign guardianship.

Bangladesh’s retired Senior Army Officers’ some views
One senior retired army officer and now a BNP leader Hannan Shah has already stated in the Bengali Dhaka daily Noya Diaganta that the Indian side had avenged the defeat they had at the hands of the BDR at the battle of Padua in late 1990s by inciting the BDR against the army for the mayhem. That is what the former BDR Chief Major General (retied) also hinted at in an interview with the BBC immediately after the BDR Jawans’ killing spree. These remarks made by senior Bangladesh retired army officers can not be given a damn. Further more, Indian Medias might well wish to kill two birds with one stone, weaken the army and make the BDR non-functional, both contenders against India in defense of the Bangladesh border.

Awami League’s Legacy
For historical reasons the founder of Bangladesh and Hasina’s father had all disliking for anything of armed force for he ‘suffered’ at their hands during the Pakistan period. On this account, both the Awami League and India keep them very closely akin to each other, India for keeping her eastern border with Bangladesh subservient and cool. One may well recall that Sheikh Mujib wished to have ‘Militia’ for internal security and for his personal safety that turned out in independent Bangladesh to be the unconstitutional and killer (Extra-judicial) Rakkhi Bahini, planned, raised and trained by the Indian army intelligence operative and General Ovan, and not for any regular army as his 6 Point political ‘Autonomy’ formula had been in late 1960s.

The Injuries done and the Real Truths behind Indian Design
Neither The Telegraph nor The Times of India reports cared to specifically mention sources and authenticity of the ISI and of Salahuddin Quader Chowdhury in the orchestration has done not only big damage to the image of the seasoned parliamentarian of Bangladesh but also injured severely Bangladesh Pakistan relations. The Indian media has, in the implication, as I understand as a Bangladeshi, further injured Bangladesh’s position among the Muslim countries and in the OIC. In defense matters Bangladesh has nothing now to worry from Pakistan but only from Indian hegemony for India is the only country and much bigger one that surrounds Bangladesh almost from all sides of international border. Neither Chowdhury nor Pakistan has anything to gain by weakening Bangladesh’s defense. It is only India and India alone that would gain enormously by weakening the defense institutions of Bangladesh and so also injuring the BDR, the valiant guards so long for decades defended our frontier with India with high credit marks and laudable success.

Sheikh Hasina’s Hobnobbing with BDR’s DAD Tawhid:
The Awami League and the P.M. Hasina, in particular, went for bargaining with the BDR contact person, one DAD (Deputy Assistant Director) Tawhid of the BDR and some others for hours when the killings and other orgies had been going on inside the BDR Head Quarter Campus. The person was known to be first untraceable soon after the deal was struck but caught by the Lalbag police three days after on the 1st March. What was the prior deal with him and clues for the contact with DAD Tawhid? Instances of Hasina’s Crookedness and Vengeance well documented by Matiur Rahman Rentu in his memoirs, AMAR FANSI CHAI (Let Me Get Hanged) is worth of a good clue in this matter as well.

High Powered Committee of Neutral Judges a Must
I would seriously feel that only a high powered committee comprising neutral persons and supreme court retired judges, if so constituted and given sufficient time and freedom, could give clear picture into the whole matter and of any likely conspiracy behind the whole mayhem. Otherwise, many crucial issues relevant to the mass killing of nearly 100 senior army officers would remain, I am afraid, shrouded in mystery and the real truth unknown to the people of Bangladesh.

Author: Dr.M.T. Hussain

Smokescreen about the 15th August 1975 victorious coup d’ etat

I am afraid, a vicious smokescreen is being made in Dhaka and also outside the close geographical frontier as follow up of the 25-26 February mutiny of the BDR Jawans in Dhaka. Some media here and there have been putting up quite a few efforts in making individual misleading analysis about the issue.

One Dhaka English daily had a report of a meeting held in Dhaka on the 28th February and published on the 1st March that, I wondered to read through, equated lives lost on the 15th August 1975 army coup with the 25-26 February at the BDR Pilkhana Headquarter.

Any innocent killing is bad and need rightly be condemned. The BDR killing days ago had been inhuman, merciless and so very much condemnable. Possibly you would find none who would not condemn the orgy. Contrarily, if one could recall back having then maturity in right senses and would realize the political scenario, people’s sentiment and genuine feelings of the period nearly 34 years ago, there was none to show minimum bare sympathy to the fallen leader. On the contrary, people rejoiced the fall of the absolute dictator along with some of his unfortunate near ones. Such distinct difference of feelings about the two issues remains a fact of history of Bangladesh.

What should be remembered, in addition, that the BDR mayhem had been orchestrated, as was known from them, for some petty demands in work positions, and was nothing to do with political power capturing and removal of any one from political power of the country. The 15th August change had been established as the successful army coup d’ etat that in almost all cases go with some bloodletting, and so remained history of nations and mankind as a legal means of political power change of hand. That is why like many other victorious coups around the world of nations, the operators of the 15th August coup enjoyed legal indemnity that unfortunately the Awami League government of Sheikh Hasina craftily turned that a simple ‘murder’ case in 1996, that is 21 years after the real occurrence. Then on went the miscarriage of justice for five years during the first term of her rule of Bangladesh. The case for obviousness of the miscarriage of justice is still pending at the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court. If real justice prevails over the miscarriage, I am sure that the heroes of the 15th August change would have a fate in freedom from prison sooner than latter.

It is as such not only unreasonable and unwise but also creating a sort of crafty smokescreen to equate the BDR mayhem of late February for expected petty gains of the few with the 15th August revolutionary change from absolute notorious dictatorship to peoples’ freedom, democracy and pluralism in Bangladesh. Let us not forget that the restoration of multi-party democracy in the country following the August 1975 revolutionary change not only restored dignity in the civilized world but also paved way forward from Bangladesh’s ignominy of the ‘International Basket Case’.

Author: Dr. M.T. Hussain

Proposed Defence Expenditure & BDR Mutiny – Interlinked?

There are I believe certain features of the BDR mutiny that cannot be easily dismissed as mere conspiracy theorizing and which I wish to elaborate on in this short article. I would hope that readers will respond to my arguments and start a debate on this crucial national issue –

1. I am completely stunned and shocked like many others at the savagery and cruelty displayed by the BDR jawans during the revolt. We are informed that many of the victims had been first shot, then bayoneted with some having their eyes pulled out and then dumped in stinking and dirty sewers. The atrocious acts committed on the women were even more incomprehensible and debasing with many being first gang-raped and then their bodies burned. What level of hatred (or madness) is required for a human being to carry out such despicable acts? Not even the Pakistani forces resorted to such behaviour in our liberation war in 1971. The obvious reason for this restraint is that the mutilation or defilement of dead bodies is strictly prohibited in Islam. It is a great sin to humiliate or abuse the body of a dead person whether friend or foe. It is on this ground that I am of the opinion that the mutiny and killing could not have been done by Muslims who would have this sin carved into their souls for eternity. This could have only been planned and orchestrated by outsiders and non-Muslims.

2. The main ground for my suspicions on outside inspiration is the enlarged defence expenditure proposed by Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina recently. The type of military equipment that was to be procured were highly sophisticated and would have significantly enhanced our defence capabilities. I am of the opinion that the BDR mutiny and these defence expenditures are linked due to some quarters not wishing Bangladesh to have an effective fighting force. Who could possibly feel threatened by the government proposal and would then seek to have it cancelled and also to send a warning signal to the government and military not to move forward with the procurements or even disable the defence forces in a preemptive act of sabotage?

3, Related to point 2 is whether the Prime Minister hoodwinked the nation by pretending to seek the procurement of the weapons and thereby allow Bangladesh to establish an effective fighting force defending the country but she had no real intention to follow through on either issue. She made a similar comment to the BDR only a few hours before the mutiny started but according to some opinions she hesitated to act against the mutineers. Why in Gods name did it take 3 days for artillery and tanks to move to the spot? Why were such inexperienced negotiators allowed to enter the compound and parley with the mutineers with a very hasty amnesty agreement being cobbled together in only a matter of a few hours?

4. How is it that our neighbouring country’s press and media were able to identify the culprits and planners of the mutiny within only a few hours of the revolt occurring? More pertinently those identified by the Indian reports had nothing to gain from this conspiracy and rebellion. Instead to identify possible suspects one should first list those who had most to gain and determine then whether they had the means and resources to carry out such an operation. From the eye witness accounts now appearing we know that this was pre-planned and premeditated. The army officers were taken by surprise without forewarning of the attack. We know now (according to firsthand testimony of survivors of the carnage in the BDR HQ) that Gen. Shakil Ahmed had in fact raised the BDR jawan’s grievances with the Prime Minister who promised to look into the issue. If this be the case why was it necessary for the jawan’s to then kill the officers regardless.

5. The intelligence and televisions pictures similarly raise some important questions. If the mutiny was planned by Islamist groups why were mutineers seen chanting `Joy Bangla’ instead of `Allah hu Akbar’ or `Bangladesh Zindabad’. The rumour that the BSF had been inciting the BDR jawans to attack the army should also be verified. There is also some doubts over why India proposed a Peace Mission even before Dhaka made a request.

6. There are rumours circulating that many of the army officers killed in the attack had only been transferred to the BDR in the last two weeks to one month. If this is really the case then this might show that the transfers were deliberately planned and the killings premeditated to wipe out some of the best and most brilliant officers in the army. These claims must be verified.

All these points deserve an answer and by seeking to find the truth we will discover if any outside forces were indeed involved or whether this was a brief act of national madness.

Bangladesh plans major defence procurement

Author: Barrister M.B.I. Munshi