I was robbed of my father in the BDR carnage: Here is why we refuse to stay silent

The country was shaken by the brutal murders of 57 unarmed army officers who were in command of the border guard force of Bangladesh (BGB), then known as the Bangladesh Rifles (BDR), in February 2009. BDR’s rank and file carried out the killings inside the force’s headquarters, while chief plotters remained unknown and untouched. Until the end of the Awami League’s autocracy, no efforts were made to unearth the truth. 

Having lost my father to bullets in the BDR carnage, and as an activist for proper justice of the incident in the years since, I find it necessary to expressly state our activities and observations as the Shaheed Paribar (victims’ families) collective in light of recent developments. I must preface this with the fact that during the Awami League’s tenure, there were concerted efforts to muzzle us. 

For ease of understanding, it is important to remind the readers that, following the incident, most of the accused BDR soldiers were tried at the force's administrative tribunals in accordance with its own Service Law, since the BDR operated as a paramilitary force under the Ministry of Home Affairs. 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. 

Aside from the administrative punishments, the judiciary presided over two specific offences: misusing explosives and murder. Those who directly participated in the killings were charged under the Penal Code in the criminal court. While the murder cases were heard over time and are currently pending at the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, with verdicts of 139 death sentences and 185 lifetime imprisonments passed by the High Court, the cases on explosives still remain at the trial stage.

Demands and calls for justice

Since the interim government took over on August 8th 2024, we, the Shaheed Paribar, were able to organise our first press conference on August 17th. We raised a few demands whose objectives had four foci – proper investigation and justice, recognition of February 25th as "Shaheed Sena Dibosh” (Army Martyr’s Day), the release of wrongfully accused BDR soldiers on humanitarian grounds, and due compensation of army officers who were dismissed from their jobs because they raised their voices and questioned the conduct of Sheikh Hasina and her government.

When the government did not respond to our demands, we arranged a second press conference on November 28th to express our intention to file a complaint at the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT) in Bangladesh as a last resort.

ICT and the investigation 

On December 15th, the interim government conveyed their unwillingness to set up an independent inquiry commission to re-investigate the BDR incident under the pretext of a writ petition filed between our two press conferences by a lawyer unrelated to the Shaheed Paribar. Since investigations during Hasina’s regime were improper and thoroughly compromised, such a decision by the government came as a shock to the public, who staged a protest outside the Ministry of Law. People voiced their opinion that the beginning of Hasina’s authoritarianism started with the killings of these career officers.

At the same time, we had more reasons to expedite our move to file the ICT complaint – which implicated Hasina, who had command responsibility of the military, and the Awami League – and we did so within four days of the government's decision. Prior to our complaint, the government showed signs of relenting to pressure by declaring that an investigative body would be created, but we were left in the dark about pertinent details, namely whether it would be an empowered commission as per The Commissions of Inquiry Act 1956 or a simple committee under the Ministry of Home Affairs’ executive order – a meaningless gesture since such committees bear fruit on extremely rare occasions – and what the terms of reference of such a body would be.

It is incumbent upon the ICT prosecutors to decide whether they would legally be able to (or prefer to) file the case based on our complaint before the hastily convened investigative body concludes its findings.

Our expectations

The government created a commission of seven, including three former military officers. While the Shaheed Paribar acknowledges the retired military officers as those of high repute and integrity, we have strict reservations about the Awami League association, if not affiliation professed by a member of the commission who is a university teacher, in his past newspaper column. It is saddening how such an important selection was made without basic screening – a simple Google search in his name would have been sufficient to reveal his partisan leanings. Therefore, first and foremost, our expectation of the government is to ensure a suitable, objective replacement.

Secondly, it is essential to exercise caution and meticulousness in assessing the conduct of the BDR rank and file. Over 18,500 BDR soldiers lost their jobs after the carnage. Since Hasina fled, these dismissed soldiers and their family members have been demanding reinstatement and compensation for wrongful dismissal and punishment. Additionally, family members of soldiers on death row and imprisoned for life have been demanding they be unconditionally released. As per the terms, reviewing the pending trials and appeals falls outside the scope of the commission.

It is understandable, even acceptable that there may be soldiers who were wrongfully punished by a compromised system and have carried the stigma of the BDR carnage since. As mentioned, we have publicly demanded that no innocents be held behind bars. However, it is important to determine their exact numbers. It is notable that, with the exception of BDR Subedar Major Islam – who was later killed alongside the 57 officers – no other soldier has been identified amongst the thousands present inside the headquarters while the killings were taking place, as having acted to stop or mitigate the gruesome episode. The state has a duty to determine the extent to which complicity in or failure to prevent the commission of crimes that included torture and murder, makes them accomplices. So, this government, known to entertain populist demands, needs to tread carefully when dealing with this section of stakeholders.

Thirdly, the government has to strictly make sure that the commission is able to get hold of all documentation and information, especially from the armed forces and the intelligence agencies. Army officers – many of whom may still be serving or maintain close links with the military – had played an active role in ensuring that there was no military intervention during the two-day carnage despite it being the expected course of action, and in spite of the army being stationed outside the BDR headquarters. In addition to the military historically being politicised, as an institution, it and the intelligence agencies have been above scrutiny, with even the slightest whisper of investigation and transparency absent. Maintaining this status quo will jeopardise the commission’s effectiveness. 

Lastly, it is necessary to mention that the commission, at their first press appearance, requested security for themselves and their families from the interim government. Precautions must, rightly, be taken to avoid any harm befalling the commission members or their families. But what about the Shaheed Paribar? Having suffered an unimaginable tragedy, we were cast aside, left to fend for ourselves with our demands for proper investigation and justice. Our reward for taking the risk of refusing to be silenced has been needing to be even more vocal, in the press and as principal complainants at the ICT. Our exposure leaves us vulnerable. Can we not expect a degree of protection from the government? Did we not lose enough to this country already?●

Saquib Rahman is a political analyst, editor of Progress Magazine and senior lecturer in the department of law at North South University.