On February 25 and 26, 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 brutally murdered by the riflemen inside the force’s headquarters in Pilkhana, Dhaka. Additionally, the officers’ houses and vehicles were burned, properties looted, and families confined for 36 hours, inhumanely assaulted, both physically and mentally. The riflemen broke into the armoury, fired blank rounds in hundreds and thousands in celebration. While the initial public perception was that maybe the riflemen held the officers hostage to ensure that some of their demands be met, the brutal killings most certainly painted a picture of high-level conspiracy– the Hasina tenure shushed the media and played an active role in burying documentation and other evidence through their men at all levels, including in the army.
Upon the end of the carnage, as the whole country mourned, thousands of riflemen were charged with different crimes, imprisoned for various terms and terminated from service.
Additionally, since the fall of the Hasina regime, an independent investigation commission was established to uncover the mystery behind the incident. The commission is scheduled to submit its report on the 30th of November, 2025.
Penalty for the first-hand wrongdoers
Most of the accused were tried by BDR’s Service Law at the force’s special courts. 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, around 800 cases on explosives remain at the trial stage.
Since the Terms of Reference (ToR) state that the commission will not interfere in the on-going trials, I wish to emphasise here the second layer of offenders whose names are expected to appear in the report – conspirators who belonged to the ousted Awami League and those from within the army.
Expectations
First and foremost, the report must be made public immediately after it is submitted to the Chief Advisor. The incident in 2009 had shaken the whole nation. Hence, the general people have the right to be informed about what sort of conspiracy (local and/ or foreign) had actually led the gruesome slayings of unarmed officers, who were trained and built to become the country’s assets through hard-earned taxpayers’ money.
Secondly, the motive behind the Awami League politicians’ involvement in the massacre must be made clear to the nation, especially if orders had come from Delhi. A significant participation of the party high command, if found in the list of offenders, should be sufficient to permanently ban the party (not just its activities as of now), since it would be well proven that an organisation which was capable of murdering its own officers and weakening the military in the interest of another country, is not merely a terrorist organisation but a full proven threat to national sovereignty.
Thirdly, put out the list of the army officers who played a part in intentionally refraining from carrying out their duty, consciously had done the needful so that the army is unable to intervene while the carnage was on-going, provided with flawed intelligence report to rule out the possibility of dangers before the massacre, destroyed proof of their failures and had later carried out illegal orders of authorities that orchestrated the massacre.
Although it is likely that these politicians have already been convicted in other cases relating to the July protests or enforced disappearances, or have absconded, the report should address them, alongside the aforementioned army officers, as traitors who should be liable for committing treason.
Fourthly, the report should recommend an appropriate court for these conspirators to be brought to justice. It can be either the chief government lawyer (Attorney General) to prosecute them or the Chief Prosecutor of the International Crimes Tribunal (ICT). It is worth mentioning that, as the victims’ families, we had already filed a complaint at the ICT last December; therefore, that forum might be the clear choice.
Fifthly, it is essential not only to clarify the political or tactical role of Delhi in the conspiracy, but also to mention whether enough proof could be accumulated on the presence of Indian foot soldiers as troops, agents or in disguise, while the massacre was taking place. If discovered, such a revelation would further strain the already tense relationship between the two countries. However, if anyone can, it is a non-political government (such as the current Interim) that can actually pressure the neighbouring government to bring the individuals to justice and demand an apology.
Sixthly, the report should recommend acknowledging certain slain civilians during the carnage, as “martyrs”, including any other BDR rank and file other than the already recognised Subedar Major Nurul Islam, who were killed in the process of trying to save the officers. However, such a recommendation would not bear fruit, provided the government does not publish a gazette—it is noteworthy that a gazette has not been published to date, which would recognise 57 slain officers as martyrs. Thus, depriving family members of the honours and privileges pertaining thereto.
Seventhly, the commission, although it had no scope to interfere in the trials of the BDR riflemen, should make it clear that their on-going trials are being held reasonably by the judiciary that is now free from Hasina’s influence, and that they are deserving of what they have been convicted for. This clarification is essential, since a narrative, mainly created by the riflemen and their families, has been in the air, that the riflemen have zero liabilities for the offenses that were committed during the carnage (including the assassinations), and that the perpetrators were outsiders (in guise of riflemen) who either belonged to the Awami League, or were Indian nationals. Although survivor officers and family members of the victims testified at various forums, the internet has proven to be a dangerous place to spread absurd theories and flawed narratives.
Last but not least, some of us who have been representing the victims’ families as spokespersons in front of the media (to ensure proper justice for the incident) have been receiving constant threats from members and supporters of the Awami League, and also riflemen and their families. Provided army officers are named (and eventually prosecuted), this is going to be an additional threat to our lives. Hence, it is expected that the commission in the report will recommend that a degree of security be ensured until the trial of all the offenders is concluded.
