The Border Guard Bangladesh, formerly BDR, should be led by army officers as it had been before, but the military and paramilitary authorities should not engage the force in any commercial activities like the Daal-Bhat programme, a trial court observed on Tuesday.
The Operation Daal-Bhat had created resentment among the now-defunct Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) members against the officers deputed from army to the border force. The programme badly affected the force’s goodwill, professionalism and honesty. It could have been conducted by businessmen, the court said.
“No disciplined forces like the paramilitary border force or the army should be involved in business like Daal-Bhat,” Judge Dr Mohammad Akhteruzzaman of the Third Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge observed in the verdict.
The judge said he had found a number of motives behind the bloody mutiny on February 25-26, 2009, such as shattering the moral strength of the army and the paramilitary force, tarnishing the image of the force abroad, and hampering foreign investment.
The court also gave a number of observations before delivering the verdict, which sentenced 152 BDR members to death and 161 mutineers to lifetime imprisonment for killing 74 people, including 57 army officers. It said propaganda and conspiracy had been hatched to commit the heinous crime.
“There was lack in leadership management and in intelligence service. I suggest that after this incident, the whole intelligence system of the force should be restructured,” the judge said.
The officers had failed to lead the troops while the detectives could not figure out the depth and extent of the conspiracy, suggesting that the officers should be appointed after training them properly and preparing them mentally to work with the new force.
The authorities should be cautious before selecting officers for deputation to the BDR. The period of deputation could be extended. The retirement age of BDR members should be decreased.
The court said old BDR members faced hurdles in doing hard work in the bordering areas. Moreover, they had to obey commands of army officers who were junior to them. If the age limit was lowered, these problems would be solved.
Army officers have been leading the force since 1795. Both the forces have a history of cooperation in saving the country. They fought together during the Liberation War. This history should be kept alive and the army officers should keep leading the border force, the court said.
Terming the bloodshed “tragic,” the court said: “The army officers were not merely killed. When I was reading the autopsy reports I was shocked.
“I know what respect a body should get after death. The jawans had grievances against the officials, but they did not show minimum respect [to the dead bodies].”
The court also identified some motives behind the killings, which might have been linked to the defence security of the country. There had been efforts to rift the mental strength of the BDR and army members.
There were social motives, too; the rebels wanted to demean the families of the army officers with a view to discouraging people from joining army in future.
“There might have been diplomatic reasons; for instance, presenting our well-organised forces as unruly before the world so that our country’s image is tarnished.
There are economic motives. If there is mismanagement in a force, the country will face turmoil. As a result, there will be no investment in the country and its economic backbone will be weakened by these attempts.”
The court noticed another reason behind the mutiny: a lack of mutual respect among the officers and the soldiers, which was evident during the trial.
Referring to the resentment expressed in the leaflets that the officers used luxurious Pajeros and lived in posh houses, the judge said: “They [soldiers] should keep in mind that they came to the profession by choice. Those who deserved commission rank became officers and those who were fit as soldiers joined the force as soldiers. It is usual that the government will provide facilities to the members as per their positions in the force.”
There was another reason for resentment among the BDR members: admitting their children to the educational institutes inside Pilkhana. The accused BDR members several times told the court that they had been deprived of getting extra quota there.
“The authorities should consider this issue and try to establish more schools and colleges to facilitate all children.”
The court also said many current and retired BDR members reside in the adjacent areas of Pilkhana because of accommodation crisis.
“Many general people were seen showing sympathy [towards the rebels] during the mutiny; they supplied water and food to the mutineers. The authorities should not let the force be used as a trade union. Thus, they should discourage living outside the compound and build more residential houses for them.”
Apart from army and police, a contingent of BDR members, including a few masterminds of the mutiny, were sent on UN peacekeeping missions in 2006-2007. But recruitment from the paramilitary force had stopped, “which left a negative impact [on the BDR members].”
The judge said: “In future, the authorities should take steps to recruit BDR members for the UN missions after discussing the issue with the UN. I am ordering the authorities to look into the matter.”
He suggested that the BDR members be given 20% allowance just like the army members and another 20% as risk allowance like the members of law enforcement agencies.
The court observed that preparing leaflets and posters could not be accepted as activities of a well-disciplined force. “They cannot hold secret meetings. Their activities were like underground political parties. I have read the leaflets. To me, most of the demands seemed irrational. A few of the demands were rational, though,” the judge said.
“I am the first court. I have delivered the sentences which seemed justified. The convicts can go to the higher court [for appeal], if they think,” the court added.
The judge also said the trial, which took 56 months to complete, would have taken less time if a “separate court” had been established to hold the trial as per a High Court directive.
