On February 25 and 26 in 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 gruesomely murdered by the BDR rank and file inside the headquarters.
Upon the end of the massacre, as the whole country mourned, a total number of 18,519 riflemen were arrested and punished.
Penalizing the wrongdoers
Most of the accused were tried at the force's Special courts in accordance with its own Service Law. 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 offenses -- 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, the cases on explosives remain at the trial stage.
Unreasonable demands by riflemen and families
Months after Hasina’s fall, the dismissed riflemen and their families, along with families of those in prison, staged protests at the capital’s Shaheed Minar on January 8 with three demands -- reinstatement of those who were punished by Special courts, to free those who have committed no crime but are yet in jail, and to repeal a clause from the terms of reference (ToR) of the newly formed BDR re-investigation commission that clarifies how reviewing the pending trials and appeals falls outside the scope of the commission.
Shifts in demands and ultimatum
Having received no response from the government, they decided to extend their protest to another day. At midnight, they declared their new single point demand, which was two-fold -- “mukti ar chakri” (release and job).
They now stood to ask for the release of all in prison, including those on death row, and reinstatement of the thousands who were dismissed after being convicted by the Special courts.
While they remarked on the legitimacy of the commission as a “kangaroo commission,” they openly said that the real perpetrators did not belong to the BDR but were outsiders disguised as riflemen.
Therefore, if their release were not ordered by the government, the protestors would “break into the prisons to free the incarcerated.” Notably, the reason for the extension of their protest to the next day, January 9, was that the explosives cases were scheduled to be heard on that day.
Hence, maybe they thought that their presence at the Shaheed Minar and the court premises would pressure the government and the judiciary.
How the show ended
Students of the Government Alia Madrassa at the capital’s Bakshibazar have long been protesting against establishing temporary courts inside their campus premises. So, on January 9, they barred the court from presiding, while the temporary courtroom caught on fire for unknown causes, leading to a postponement of the hearing date.
On learning about the situation, the riflemen and families blocked the intersections of the capital's Shahbagh area for two hours. Eventually, they went back to the Shaheed Minar to conclude their program. However, they declared that till the next court date, they would keep organizing programs all over Bangladesh.
Role of the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement
The riflemen and their families received the support of the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement, which helped them receive significant media attention.
But, I have to say that I am shocked and hurt by how the Anti-Discrimination Student Movement did not deem it necessary to discuss with the victims' families and value our sentiments before voicing in favour of the felons from the tragedy.
How victims’ families feel
Firstly, the readers need to know what the victims' families had gone through during the massacre. The riflemen had grabbed the slain officers’ wives and children by their necks and hair and dragged them from their homes to 36 hours of confinement inside the small BDR headquarters quarter guards’ space.
They were subject to uncouth behaviour, addressed in languages that society disapproves of, hit by rifle butts, and kicked by the boots. While in custody, the victims' families described how their husbands and fathers (including those who were doctors) were being slaughtered outside, and that their fates would be no different. They were provided with no food, water, medical support, or access to the toilet.
All types of crimes as aforementioned were perpetrated by the riflemen, and not outsiders.
Secondly, we, the victims' families, might have been pressurizing the government to unearth the mystery behind the atrocities and to find the men behind the guns. But that does not invalidate the resolved and pending court cases against the riflemen.
It is notable that all three types of cases, such as in the Special courts, explosives, and murder cases, require sufficient evidence to establish a person's wrongdoings beyond reasonable doubt.
The victims’ families and survivors had provided witness testimonies. This means that the riflemen and the families' narratives on how the BDR rank and file were played by some external force, and that they committed no crimes, and that the conspirators are solely to be blamed for the carnage -- are nothing short of blatant lies.
Outright rejecting convictions by the judiciary based on the mob would set a dangerous precedent. So, scrapping the commission’s ToR clause is out of the question.
But we, the victims' families, definitely acknowledge that pending cases should be heard at a faster pace, and those the judiciary deems right be given bail or acquittal.
Lastly, Special courts set up as per the Service Law were presided over by high-ranked commanders of the BGB who were army officers. Questioning the integrity of the Special courts would question the honour of BGB and the army since its personnel had given verdicts.
Once again, the whole country shall observe our cries of despair, provided those who killed our beloved ones in cold blood are freed from prison.
Advocate Saquib Rahman is the Editor of Progress Magazine, and a Senior Lecturer of law at North South University. He is the son of slain Col Quadrat Elahi Rahman Shafique.