NYT doubts neutral report on February massacre in Bangladesh

Prestigious daily in United States, New York Times [NYT] has published a commentary by its correspondent Somini Sen Gupta on March 13, 2009 titled, Bangladeshi Premier Faces a Grim Crucible, where she, while commenting on the forthcoming result of the 3 investigation teams to probe the February 25-26 massacre inside Bangladesh Riffles headquarters said, "The truth of what happened may never be known."

NYT commenting on the present relations between the government and armed forces said, "Today, about two months into her tenure as prime minister of this fractious, poor and coup-prone country, she confronts her greatest crucible yet: an unusually savage mutiny by border guards last month that left soldiers buried in mass graves and widened the gulf between her fragile administration and the military.

Altogether, 74 people were killed, mostly army officers in command of the border force."

Commenting on the two investigation committees formed so far, the New York Times said, "Two separate investigations are under way: one by the army, another by Mrs. Hasina´s government. Whether either will yield credible results or whether their findings will be consistent is unknown. Mrs. Hasina´s fate and the stability of the country depend on a satisfactory resolution."

Bangladeshi Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in an interview termed the February massacre as an attempt against her agenda establishing secular democracy in the Muslim majority nation of 150 million.

Here we may rewind our memory to the fact of signing of a treaty between Bangladesh Awami League and Islamist party named Khelafat Majlish on December 23, 2007.

Let us see the contents of the treaty:

"Bangladesh Awami League and Bangladesh Khelafat Majlish committing to this agreement on following 5 points for jointly participating in the ensuing 9th National Parliamentary Election, and if Allah the Great blesses victory shall implement these points.

No law shall be enacted contrary to the Quran, Sunnah and Shariah.

Government Recognition to Quaumi Madrasa Certificate will be duly implemented.

Laws will be enacted as follows:

Hazrat Muhammad [PBUH] is the Last and the Greatest Messenger of Allah.

Certified Righteous Ulemas reserve the right to issue Fatwa. One who is not certified shall not have the right to issue Fatwa.

Defamation or criticism of Messengers of Allah and Sahabas [Companions of Hazrat Muhammad SAWS] is punishable crime."

Now, let us evaluate the contents of this treaty, which goes against the ´secularist´ claim of Sheikh Hasina and her government.

In the treaty, it is clearly mentioned that, Islamist clergies will have the right to issue fatwa [Sermons], which had already been questioned by the people of Bangladesh as well as the judiciaries. In the treaty it is also mentioned that, no anti-Shariah law shall be enacted in Bangladesh. In fact, this is a very twisted language of saying that the government of Bangladesh Awami League will enact Shariah Law.

The treaty also agrees to pronounce that, Prophet of Islam is the last and greatest messenger of God. But, Qur´an never creates any differentiations amongst the prophets of God. Such notion is imported from Islamist countries like Syria, Iran etc.

Most importantly, one of the major partners of the Grand Alliance [which has formed the present government in Bangladesh], Jatiyo Party has specifically said in their electoral manifesto that, Blasphemy Laws will be enacted in the country. Certainly, there is already pressure from the major ally of the present government in enacting the blasphemy law as soon as possible.

Government has also agreed to duly recognize the certificates issued by Qaomi [Qur´anic] Madrassas. It may be mentioned here that, presently there are more than 69,000 Qur´anic Madrassas in Bangladesh. Counter-terrorism experts have already identified these Madrassas as potential breeding ground of Jihadists. So, in other words, Sheikh Hasina´s government is set to give recognition to the breeding grounds of Jihadists as part of their strategy of gaining support from the radical Muslims in the country.

None of these facts at all show that Sheikh Hasina is willing to establish secularist democracy in Bangladesh. She might be using this term with the goal of attaining support from the Western world.

Let us get back to the NYT commentary! It also focused on the point that Sheikh Hasina already alleged Islamist militancy to be behind the February Massacre in Dhaka. Although the matter is under investigation, such remarks by the Chief Executive of the country may ultimately influence the investigation result, at least those conducted by the government and Criminal Investigation Department. The Prime Minister even asserted that such massacre may happen again. Anyone may raise a simple question as to how the PM is assumptive of repetition of such notoriety in the country. Any intelligence report?

The mystery of PM´s refusal to attend the dinner at BDR headquarters on February 26, 2009 is yet to be known. It was confirmed that, the Prime Minister´s office conveyed the message on February 22, 2009 with the top level officials of BDR that the PM was unable to attend the dinner. This is a big question as to why Sheikh Hasina turned down the invitation almost 3 days before the massacre. Any advance intelligence report? Yes, the PM has also endorsed the fact right inside the Parliament that she received intelligence report in advance about such incident. In this case, natural question may arise here as to why the PM did not initiate any actions in combating the potential notoriety inside the BDR headquarters.

After the massacre, the PM said repeatedly that she ordered the army to move towards the BDR headquarters, but they [the army] were not able to mobilize before two hours. But in NYT, Ms. Somoni said, the Prime Minister allowed the army only to take position around the BDR headquarters but not storm into it. What stopped the PM from instructing the army in storming inside the BDR headquarters thus salvaging the officers and their family members?

It is reported already that, after getting general amnesty from the Prime Minister, the killer ´mutineers´ were chanting slogans of joys and were killing one after another officers, who were being held hostage. Moreover, the incidents of rapes started right from the dark hours of February 25, 2009, much later the General Amnesty was declared. Who should be held responsible for this?

There are also specific indications and proves that some of the survived officers were also affiliated with the massacre. These are the people, who had been praising the general amnesty of the government as well uttering comments as if; the General Amnesty has saved the country from a potential civil war.

We can only wait for the investigation report, to ascertain, if the comments of NYT were correct or not. Be reminded here, NYT said "The truth of what happened may never be known."